Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Catering Standards

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the standard of meals in hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. David Ennals):: Catering standards generally have been improved in recent years but I am sure that there is still room for further improvement in some hospitals.

Mr. Mills:: Does the Minister realise that some hospitals are certainly not up to standard? One of the most important things to get a patient healthy and strong again is good wholesome British food. Will the Minister look into this matter and see that this is so?

Mr. Ennals:: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's conclusions. But undoubtedly there have been improvements. Far more hospitals today have a choice of menu. Much more training is being done concerning catering officers. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular point that he wishes to bring to my attention I will look into it.

Food (Purchasing Practices)

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the contract system of buying raw food materials in our hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ennals:: The contract arrangements for raw foods vary between hospital authorities. Purchasing prac-

tices will be reviewed as part of the general reorganisation of hospital supply arrangements now being planned.

Mr. Mills:: Surely the Minister will agree that large-scale contract buying can produce lower quality food when it is purchased. Does the Minister agree that a catering officer is the proper person to deal with this problem and to buy particular food for particular hospitals?

Mr. Ennals:: There already is consultation between supply officers and catering officers. There is no doubt that we get more value for money when certain commodities can be bulk purchased. This is so far proving to be very satisfactory. As I said, we are looking at the extension of this practice in other directions.

Hospital of St. Cross, Rugby

Mr. William Price: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he now expects phase two of the development of Hospital of St. Cross, Rugby, to be carried out.

The Under-Secretary of State to Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Julian Snow):: No precise date has been assigned. The regional hospital board is at present reviewing its programme.

Mr. Price:: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board has pushed this programme so far back that it has now virtually disappeared? Will he tell the board to take its hands of Rugby's medical services, unless it wants real trouble?

Mr. Snow:: Some of us have broad shoulders and, perhaps, the board will look at it in that light. I remind my hon. Friend that certain changes are taking place in the distribution of services in the Rugby area as a result of the opening of new hospitals elsewhere. The size of the population which should be served by a district general hospital has yet to be determined.

Organ Transplant Operations

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the law governing organ transplant operations.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Grossman):: I have this matter under consideration but I am not yet ready to make a statement.

Mr. St. John-Stevas:: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the need for clear and well drafted legislation on this subject is pressing and urgent? Is he aware that if he is not prepared to act I shall seek leave to introduce a Bill myself?

Mr. Crossman:: That is a threat which I contemplate with equanimity. The hon. Gentleman ought to realise that this is a matter on which there is a strong minority opinion which has to be carefully considered. I would have thought that, with this kind of new development, a little caution would be good even for the most brilliant academics.

Mr. Shinwell:: Did my right hon. Friend observe that it was previously suggested that he had a brilliant academic brain? Could not that be transplanted to the hon. Gentleman opposite?

Sir G. Nabarro:: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that in the last Session a piece of initiating private Members' legislation, backed by all parties in the House, six doctors and six laymen, passed through First and Second Readings and Committee stage and was frustrated only by lack of time? Will he examine those proceedings with a view to renewing them in the forthcoming Session in that area of organ transplant surgery which has alone proved wholly successful to date?

Mr. Crossman:: The hon. Gentleman will be surprised to hear that I spent some part of Sunday studying those proceedings with very great interest. They confirm me in my view that this is a very complicated and difficult matter. I would prefer to legislate adequately rather than inadequately. If the hon. Gentleman has any success with his Bill again, I will consider it on its merits, but I advise him that to legislate for just one kind of organ would be wasteful. This is a problem to deal with generally as part of the techniques of modern surgery.

Hospital Treatment (Private Medical Insurance)

Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimate

he has made of the number of people covered for hospital treatment by private medical insurance, and of the percentage increase in this number over the past three years; and what action he proposes on account of this trend.

Mr. Ennals:: None, Sir. I am aware of these schemes, but my concern is to see that hospital care is available without payment to those who need it.

Mr. Biffen:: Ought not the hon. Gentleman to welcome the valuable contribution which the private sector is making to the health of the nation? Is he aware that a progressive and popular gesture on his part would be to enable hospitals to keep for themselves income deriving from private beds which they make available within National Health hospitals?

Mr. Ennals:: My answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is that I am certainly not proposing any change. As for his first question; we must recognise that a substantial extension of private practice in medicine would not be in the interests of the general public. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because medical manpower is limited and if private patients claimed disproportionately more beds, there would be fewer for National Health patients.

Dr. John Dunwoody:: Will my hon. Friend consult his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to ending the practice by which the taxpayer subsidises private medical practice through tax relief obtained by industrial and business concerns which take out group insurance for their staff?

Mr. Ennals:: That is a different question.

Lord Balniel:: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we certainly repudiate his views about private health insurance? Can he say quite simply whether it is Government policy to encourage or discourage private health insurance?

Mr. Ennals:: I expected the hon. Gentleman to repudiate that view. That indicates the difference between the two sides of the House on this question. The attitude of my right hon. Friend is precisely that of his predecessor. Our main responsibility is to the National Health Service and those who apply for treatment under it.

Mentally Ill (Patients Community Care)

Mr. Costain: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to improve community care for the mentally ill to enable patients at present in hospital to be discharged.

Mr. Snow:: Plans for the development of local authority services for the mentally ill are set out in Command Paper 3022—"Health and Welfare: The Development of Community Care".

Mr. Costain:: Does not the Minister realise, as indicated by correspondence I have had with him, that there is a real shortage of accommodation in mental hospitals to the detriment of patients? Would not private facilities designed to get patients out of hospital make up for the Government's inefficiency in not building enough mental hospitals?

Mr. Snow:: I am quite certain of my facts when I tell the hon. Gentleman that the record of the Labour Government is better than any previous Government in this matter, from the point of view of hospitals, day centres, workshops and above all, perhaps, social workers. Our building and recruitment figures are very strikingly in support of a progressive policy in this matter.

Mentally Ill and Sub-normal Adolescents

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many hospital beds there are for the mentally sick and sub-normal adolescents; and what estimate he has made of the total number needed to meet requirements.

Mr. Snow:: There are about 1,350 mentally ill and 6,250 sub-normal patients aged 15 to 19 in hospitals in England and Wales. About 250 beds are provided in special units for mentally ill adolescents, for which the total need is estimated to be about 1,000.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins:: Would the Minister agree that there is a totally inadequate provision of accommodation for adolescents who are mentally disturbed? What is he doing to put the situation right? Does he realise that the Midlands, and particularly Derbyshire, are in great need

of this type of accommodation, which is sorely lacking at present?

Mr. Snow:: One can exaggerate the size of the problem, although it is a serious one. The formula we use is the provision, in due course, of 20 to 25 beds of this type per 1 million of the population. That gives a total, in due course, of 970 to 1,200 beds. Seventy more beds will be available during the next 12 months. On our present building programme, we believe that we will achieve the overall required figure within a reasonable time.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend do all he can to provide small units near homes for these tragic cases, which often require very long-term care?

Mr. Snow: Yes, Sir. For this reason I spoke of a formula on which we are working. However, a multiplicity of small units would raise difficult economic problems.

Mr. Shinwell: Would my hon. Friend take note of the importance which hon. Members on both sides attach to the Question, as well as the many suggestions which have been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, all meaning very much increased expenditure on the National Heath Service? Can he provide an estimate of the cost of doing all these things?

Mr. Snow: An actuarial study would be required. I spend a large part of my time trying to meet the persistent demands of hon. Gentlemen opposite for increased expenditure, coupled with demands for reductions in public expenditure.

Leicester Royal Infirmary (Gynaecological Appointments)

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to shorten the waiting period for patients who are advised to consult their gynaecologists at Leicester Royal Infirmary.

Mr. Snow: The Sheffield Regional Hospital Board is at present considering how the necessary beds and other facilities could be made available to enable another consultant gynaecologist to be appointed.

Mr. Farr: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some women must wait for more than three months to achieve an appointment with a gynaecologist and


that as; a result of this long delay a number of them are having to consult private practitioners?

Mr. Snow: I am sorry if that is the case. As I have explained, a fifth gynaecologist will be arranged to work in this area. I can see that it would be convenient for the hon. Gentleman's constituents to have a peripheral out-patients' clinic; but again, that would put up costs.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Prescription Charges

Mr. Dance: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will explain the Government's broad objectives which his predecessor stated were adequately secured by the decision not to reduce the age for exemption from prescription charges to 60 years of age for women.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will now take steps to exempt women pensioners between the ages of 60 and 65 years from the payment of prescription charges.

Mr. Crossman: We exempted those most likely to suffer hardship through paying the charges. I have no proposals for extending the categories entitled to exemption.

Mr. Dance: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this decision is causing great hardship to those on the borderline of receiving supplementary pensions? I know of many cases, but one in particular where a woman aged 61, who is disabled and cannot work, is having to pay 5s. a week for her prescription. It is very hard on her.

Mr. Crossman: I am sure that all borderline; cases cause hardship. But wherever we draw the line there is still a borderline case.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that with a retirement age of 60 for women and 65 for men, women should be entitled to the exemption made for them between the ages of 60 and 65 as there is grave hardship throughout the country, and particularly in my constituency?

Mr. Crossman: I cannot draw the same conclusion. I do not think there is any evidence that women between the ages of 60 and 65 are more likely to need frequent prescriptions than men of that age. We did not draw the line at the age of retirement, but at a certain age when we thought the likelihood would be increased.

Miss Herbison: Will my right hon. Friend take into account that there are many women between 60 and 65 years of age who are dependent on husbands who have retired at 65, because it is in these categories that real suffering is obtaining at present?

Mr. Crossman: Yes. I agree with my right hon. Friend who, as usual, has put her finger on it. This is a genuine area which I am prepared to consider. But I do not think that we should extend the exemption.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Dr. David Kerr: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of prescriptions dispensed since the introduction of charges have been subject to exemption.

Mr. Ennals: Forty-nine per cent. during the period from 10th June to 31st July.

Dr. Kerr: Is not my hon. Friend appreciative of the fact that this excludes those claiming exemption under the Social Security Regulations, and those who will benefit by the new season ticket system? Does not he agree that with this newly discovered access of support from Bromsgrove and West Derbyshire we might look again at the whole system of prescription charges, perhaps with a view to doing away with them altogether?

Mr. Ennals: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend's conclusion. Apart from the 49 per cent. to which I referred, a further 2 per cent. of prescription charges are refunded, which makes the figure 51 per cent. This is roughly the figure which was estimated by my right hon. Friends, and I cannot suggest that we can now review it.

Dr. John Dunwoody: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his present estimate of the total revenue from prescription charges in the first 12 months of the operation.

Mr. Ennals: Some £16 to £17 million, including money received for pre-payment certificates.

Dr. Dunwoody: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Can he assure us that, as this seems to fall a little short of the original estimates of the revenue which would be obtained, there will be no question at the end of the year of altering the charge to make the total up to the original estimate?

Mr. Ennals: I see no reason for my hon. Friend's concern. In fact, the figure is running almost exactly as had been anticipated. After all, the scheme was introduced only in June and, apart from the savings to which I referred, there are also some savings through the reduction in the number of prescriptions. My present expectation is that the figure will be approximately £25 million in a full year, as my right hon. Friend announced.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: What will the net figure be after expenses have been deducted?

Mr. Ennals: The net expenses will be quite small. I cannot give an exact figure.

Play Groups

Miss Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services under what act may local authorities grant aid to play groups in order to bring them up to the new standards required under the new Regulations relating to the Nursery and Child Minders Act.

Mr. Snow: Play groups run by voluntary organisations which provide for children with a special need for care on health and welfare grounds may be assisted by local health authorities under Section 65 of the Health Services and Public Health Act, 1968.

Miss Lestor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are about 100,000 children in privately run play groups and, because of the new Regulations regarding registration—of which I entirely approve

—many of them will have extra burdens to bear in respect of increased sanitary facilities and so forth? Will my right hon. Friend advise local authorities that they are eligible to give these private organisations grants as well?

Mr. Snow: That has already been done. My Department issued a circular last month giving all the suggestions which we thought might help local authorities in this matter.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Minister aware that one way in which he can help these private authorities is by relieving them of paying S.E.T.?

Mr. Snow: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Disabled People

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the latest position reached in the study of the disabled by the Government Social Survey; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Snow: Field work began in September and should be completed in January.

Mr. Campbell: As it is now almost exactly a year since the study was first announced in reply to a Question of mine, can the Minister now give any indication of the action which the Government propose to take thereafter? I ask that because it now appears that no positive action can yet be taken to help the severely disabled because of the lack of basic information.

Mr. Snow: This has been a most successful exercise. Replies were received to 87 per cent. of the 250,000 questionnaires sent out. The fact is that 11,000 people taken from those answers are now being contacted personally, so that within the scope of this survey we shall have a better definition of where these people are located. From that point onwards we can help local authorities to complete their own registers.

Mr. Worsley: Can the Minister say when the information from this survey will be published?

Mr. Snow: We hope that the survey will be completed by January next. From


then onwards it will be largely a matter of analysis. The report will not be available before towards the end of next year, but a lot can be done by local authorities in this matter with the data which we shall be able to send out to them earlier.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish in the Official Report the numbers of disabled people in Great Britain divided into appropriate categories; what estimate he has made of the cost of introducing disablement pensions based solely on the level of disablement; and whether he will introduce legislation providing for the payment of such pensions at an early date.

Mr. Crossman: I cannot do as my hon. Friend wishes because we at present lack comprehensive reliable information about the number and extent of disablement in: he population.
As to legislation, my hon. Friend will be aware that a White Paper on the future development of social security has been promised.

Mr. Roberts: But will my right hon. Friend at least assure the House that something will be done as soon as adequate figures are available? Is he aware that the estimates of disabled are expected to be up to 1½ million, and that the helping of these people and their families is a matter of urgent and absolute priority?

Mr. Crossman: My hon. Friend heard in answer to a previous Question how the inquiry was going. When it is completed, and we can study the facts, we can come to our conclusions and make a statement of policy, but not before.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is it not monstrous that we should have to wait an extra year, that is, two years in all, before any constructive action is taken by the Government?

Mr. Crossman: I am grateful for that question. I said when the survey was completed, not published. It is true that, well before the full publication of all the details, I hope we can come to interim conclusions. I think that it is right to remind us of that.

Mr. Molloy: I appreciate that the work being done by my right hon. Friend and his Department is a massive improvement on the puny efforts of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but may I ask him to continue the liaison with the Disablement Income Group on this problem, as this group has been so helpful and has gathered so much information on this rather difficult problem?

Mr. Crossman: I hope very soon to receive a deputation from the group and to discuss the problem with it.

Entitlement Leaflet (Distribution)

Mr. Barnes: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when the entitlement leaflet, distributed in certain parts of the country at the end of July, will be distributed in the London area.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Stephen Swingler): The distribution of this leaflet was deliberately confined to certain parts of the country so that the relative effectiveness of different methods of publicity in this field could be assessed. It is not yet possible to complete this assessment, and it would accordingly be premature to decide whether the leaflet—which will in any case need amendment to show the increased rates of certain benefits—should be distributed in other areas, including London.

Mr. Barnes: As 16 million of these leaflets were printed, and as there is an undoubted need for a campaign of this type in the London area, may I ask my hon. Friend to give the House an assurance that he will go ahead and distribute them in London as soon as possible, because it is during the winter that the greatest need for benefit occurs?

Mr. Swingler: I think that this is a deliberate decision to confine distribution to certain parts of the country. I think we should wait until the analysis is available—it involves a number of Government Departments—and then we shall consider what action it is appropriate to take for London.

Cigarettes and Lung Cancer

Dr. John Dunwoody: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to introduce legisla-


tion to reduce the dangers to the public resulting from the consumption of cigarettes.

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals he plans to make to reduce the incidence of lung cancer.

Mr. Crossman: There is no doubt the incidence of lung cancer would be greatly reduced if older people stopped smoking cigarettes and if young people never got the habit. As the House is aware, the Government intend in due course to introduce legislation to restrict cigarette advertising and sales promotion. Meanwhile our most urgent task is to increase the effectiveness of deterrent propaganda among young people.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the report of the Chief Medical Officer of Health makes very gloomy reading, and paints a deteriorating picture? Does he further agree that if we cannot cut this habit more than half a million of today's population will die directly as a result of it? In view of the number of people buying cut-price cigarettes, will my right hon. Friend look urgently at the question of advertising, and possibly at the question of differential tax changes to help people stop smoking cigarettes?

Mr. Crossman: On the first part of that question, the answer is "Yes". That is the logical conclusion to be drawn from what Sir George Godber says. No doubt it is true, and it is an appalling fact. As regards the second part of the question, the suggestion for taxing cigarette advertising or imposing restrictions on it is fraught with difficulties. I am looking at it extremely seriously, but clearly legislation cannot come during this Session.

Mr. Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recent figures of deaths from lung cancer are causing increasing awareness of this problem, and that people will soon become angry about the numbers dying because of this habit? Will my right hon. Friend take up urgently with the Chancellor of the Exchequer not only the question of a differential tax, where a solution can be found if the will is there, but also the question of withdrawing concessions to

travellers abroad who are allowed to bring back up to 200 cigarettes tax-free?

Mr. Crossman: I shall consider both those proposals, and also talk to the Chancellor about them. As for the threat that people will get angry, I hope that they will.

Mr. John Hall: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, apart from the effect of smoking cigarettes, air pollution has a great deal to do with the incidence of lung cancer? Will he take steps to make more effective the existing legislation on air pollution?

Mr. Crossman: That is rather a different question, but it is not my impression that it is wise to try to give people the impression that cigarette smoking is not the major cause of the deaths, and not only from lung cancer, but also from bronchitis which is greatly under-estimated as one of the deleterious effects of cigarette smoking.

Sir G. Nabarro: Whilst sympathising with both original questioners, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he recognises that the simplest, most economical, and most effective way of giving this warning to the smoking public is to print the warning on every cigarette packet sold in this country, which would cost the Government nothing, and would be graphic and illustrative of the dangers?

Mr. Crossman: I think I am right in saying that in the United States something of that sort is done. I am new here, but I shall consider whether that is really a desirable suggestion.

Civilian Disability Pension

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he plans to introduce a civilian disability pension for the civilian handicapped.

Mr. Swingler: I must ask the hon. Member to await the publication of the Government's White Paper on the future development of social insurance.

Mr. Baker: Would not the Minister agree that such research as exists—I have in mind surveys in West Middlesex—indicates that financial need usually, though not always, goes with physical handicap, and should not a civilian disability pension be the first priority of the new Ministry?

Mr. Swingler: I cannot accept that it should necessarily be the first priority, but we recognise that there is a problem here. It is being considered seriously, but I cannot say anything in advance of the publication of the White Paper.

Mr. Tinn: In preparing the White Paper will my hon. Friend bear in mind the problem of the disabled housewife and take steps to ensure that husbands are not forced to give up work—thereby depriving the community of the results of their work—because of the necessity of being at home to look after the children, do the shopping, and so on?

Mr. Swingler: When I answered the previous supplementary question I had in mind particularly the problems of the severely disabled housewife.

Lord Balniel: The hon. Gentleman must know his intention to introduce a civilian disability pension. Why cannot he say so now? Does he accept as a principle that all forms of disability—whether caused by industrial injury or civilian disability—should be treated alike for insurance purposes?

Mr. Swingler: The answer is that the Government have promised to recast the social security system, and the results of their considerations will be published in a White Paper. It would be far better for hon. Members to judge the merits of the proposals at that time.

Local Authority Day Nurseries

Miss Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has for enabling an increase in the number of local authority day nurseries.

Mr. Snow: We will give immediate consideration to all day nursery projects submitted in response to the Government's invitation to authorities under the urban programme and my right hon. Friend would hope to be able to approve many more day nursery schemes than would otherwise have been possible.

Miss Lestor: My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware of the pleasure that the facilities for the under-fives included in the urban development grant have given to those who have campaigned for this under-privileged section of the community. But is he not aware that—quite rightly—the new Regulations regarding

child minders will undoubtedly reduce the number of places provided by the private sector in this respect and that this makes it urgent for an increase to be made over the whole field, especially in areas where mothers go out to work?

Mr. Snow: Yes, and it was with such a consideration in mind that a further circular was issued on 18th October last inviting local authorities to submit schemes and information as to the total requirements in their areas, both short-term and long-term. When we have received that information we shall decide what steps should be taken.

Emergency Dental Treatment

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will introduce regulations to ensure that emergency National Health Service dental treatment is available at suitably placed local centres at weekends and outside normal working hours.

Mr. Snow: My right hon. Friend does not consider that the establishment of such a service would be justified.

Mr. Roberts: Is my hon. Friend aware that the emergency dental service ceased in the Luton and Dunstable area recently, due to the lack of support from local dentists? Can he state how many other areas have no emergency treatment facilities—even for dental haemorrhage—outside normal working hours?

Mr. Snow: On the latter part of the supplementary question, I cannot answer without notice. As to the first part, I was aware of this breakdown of the emergency service in the Luton area. I should tell the House that we have agreed with the Postmaster-General that facilities will be given to existing dentists who notify their Executive Councils of any rota system. There should be a facility whereby people suffering from dental trouble can obtain the necessary information if there is a service in their area.

Elderly Persons (School Meals Service)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, in his discussions on the Seebohm Report, he will consider seeking powers to use the school meals service, staff and premises


for providing hot meals for the elderly outside the school dinner hour.

Mr. Snow: Local authorities already have powers enabling them to use the school meals service for this purpose and a number of them do so. We are considering with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science the possibility of further development.

Mr. Allaun: I am most grateful for that Answer. In view of the fact that the meals on wheels service meets the needs of such a small minority, would not this be an imaginative way to provide one hot meal a day for old people who do not now get it, without duplicating the existing schools service?

Mr. Snow: Such a service depends on the surplus capacity at schools which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science may feel that he can place at the disposal of such services. Additionally, local authorities can contract with hospitals where equivalent surplus capacity exists.

Separated Mothers (Maintenance Payments)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider taking steps to enable his Department to make maintenance payments to separated mothers, and to institute state prosecutions where the husbands default, on the lines of the system operated in Norway, details of which have been sent him.

The Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): A separated woman receiving supplementary benefit is already invited to authorise the magistrates' clerk to pay to the Ministry any money received by him under a maintenance order, so that her full supplementary benefit is regularly paid. The Supplementary Benefits Commission obtains orders where a woman is unable or unwilling to proceed and enforces such orders as appropriate. The question of enforcement of judgment debts is being considered by the Payne Committee.

Mr. Allaun: Is it not obviously easier for the State, with all its apparatus and

powers, to overcome the difficulties of mothers in this position, rather than for the mothers themselves?

Mr. Pentland: I take my hon. Friend's point but, as I have said, the question of the enforcement of judgment debts, including maintenance and affiliation orders, is being considered by a committee set up by the Lord Chancellor under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Payne. The report of the committee should be available shortly.

Mr. J. T. Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that some time ago I was promised that the Payne Committee's Report would be available in July of last year and yet we are still waiting for it? When are we going to get it? Is my hon. Friend aware that in many cases where women are living apart from their husbands, his Department—the Department of Social Security—is actually paying State benefit to the men on behalf of their dependants and the dependants are not getting benefit? In many cases the men cannot be traced and the women, who have been trying to keep their families without their husbands' support, are unable to get any judgment summons made effective by the present operation of county court procedure?

Mr. Pentland: With regard to my hon. Friend's concluding remarks, if he knows of any constituent of his, or anyone else, who is experiencing these difficulties we shall be happy to look into them. Speaking completely off the cuff, I have no recollection of anyone from my Ministry, speaking from the Dispatch Box, saying that the Payne Committee was expected to report by July last. I am not doubting my hon. Friend's word. All I can say today, however, is that we are expecting the report shortly.

Men and Women (Pensions and Earnings Rule)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, in view of the Government's policy for equal pay for equal work for women, whether he will make a statement concerning pension ages for men and women, at present respectively 65 years and 60 years, on the uniformity of retirement age for men and women, and on the uniformity of earnings rule regulations.

Mr. Crossman: These are all matters which will be discussed in the Govern-men's White Paper dealing with the future development of social insurance and I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await its publication.

Elderly Persons (Supplementary Pensions)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, having regard to increased licence fees for television and radio and longer hours and increased postal and telephone charges, what arrangements he is making to help in these regards the elderly and needy, by supplementary pension increase adjustments; and whether he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Charles Loughlin): As regards television licence fees there is nothing I can add to the replies given by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General on 14th and 21st October. On the remainder of the question I would remind the hon. Gentleman that supplementary benefit scales were increased as recently as last month.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 770, c. 54 and 222.]

Sir G. Nabarro: But they were increased after—and long after—it was decided by the Government substantially to increase the television and radio licences. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Postmaster-General replied to me saying that the proposal for a special allowance in respect of the licence for the old and the needy was a very good suggestion? Will not he heed those sympathetic words?

Mr. Loughlin: I would not like the House to think that we were unsympathetic to this problem. Consideration has been given to the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman, and further consideration is being given to it. If we can do so, we shall be helpful.

Mr. Winnick: I appreciate the fact that the supplementary benefits have been increased recently, but could not there be a special type of rebate for elderly people—certainty retired people receiving supplementary benefit—along the

same lines as the rate rebate system introduced by the Government?

Mr. Loughlin: It seems to me that my hon. Friend prepared his supplementary question before he heard my Answer. I said that we were examining this and that we were not unsympathetic and would do what we could.

Disabled Persons (Cars)

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many of the 1,600 households estimated to be eligible to receive disabled drivers' cars under the categories announced on 15th February, 1967, have applied for them and received them.

Mr. Snow: 205 applications have been received, of which 143 have been accepted.

Mr. Marten: Does not this show that the basis of the calculations upon which the Ministry originally made these Regulations need revising, and that if the categories were widened many more people, such as haemophiliacs, could apply for these extremely useful vehicles?

Mr. Snow: I very much appreciate the efforts made by the hon. Member to visit the establishment responsible for the distribution of these vehicles. His efforts were much appreciated. As to our estimate, given last year, the figures have to be revised the whole time. When the original figures were given for the 1964 estimate they turned out to be an underestimate. We think that the position may not be resolved really efficiently until we get some of the information that we expect to receive from the general survey of the disabled.

Lord Balniel: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that there is something seriously wrong when so few of the people entitled to disabled drivers' cars are receiving them? Would he re-examine once again the whole question of assessment?

Mr. Snow: Yes, this is a continuing process, but the noble Lord should know that there is the factor of running costs for a car versus those for a tricycle. This is a factor; I would not over-emphasise it, but we cannot be certain of our facts one way or another until we get the results of the survey.

Prototype P.5 Invalid Tricycle

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will issue the new Prototype P.5 invalid tricycle as a two-seater.

Mr. Snow: This prototype has been designed as a single-seater and is still undergoing trials. It is too early to consider any further development of it.

Mr. Marten: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is eminently suitable for a two-seater for those people who are disabled and wish to carry a passenger? When is it likely to come into production for disabled drivers?

Mr. Snow: The question of a two-seater vehicle is one which might properly be discussed with my right hon. Friend when he receives—the hon. Gentleman will know of this—a deputation from the Joint Council for Mobility of the Disabled shortly. It is a consideration. There are obviously social requirements here which should be satisfied in due course, if our resources permit.

Health Education Council (Appointment of Director-General)

Dr. David Kerr: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much was paid to Management Consultants Limited for their services in connection with the appointment of a director of the Health Education Council; and what were the results of their work.

Mr. Snow: The amount to be paid is £1,094. None of the candidates who responded to the advertisement was considered to have the necessary qualities for the post but the Council have now made an appointment.

Dr. Kerr: Would my hon. Friend confirm that, among the original candidates who applied was the then medical director of the pre-existing Central Council for Health Education, that his application was among relatively few, and that the recent appointment of a new director was not the subject of selection by Management Consultants Ltd., and has resulted in the appointment of a doctor without any previous experience in health education? Would he not agree that this is a very unsatisfactory start to the work of the Health Education Council?

Mr. Snow: With the benefit of hindsight, one might say that we could have achieved a satisfactory appointment perhaps a little earlier, but we have learned with experience. I do not know the position about any gentleman who was not selected, but, in reply to my hon. Friend's last question, I would say that the new Director-General has had considerable experience of industrial medicine and also holds academic posts. If my hon. Friend considers the situation in normal industry, he will realise that it is not always the proposals of management selection organisations which are accepted by the sponsoring firms.

Dr. Kerr: On a point of order. In view of the totally unsatisfactory answer to that Question, I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment as early as possible.

Married Women (Earnings Rule)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he proposes to take steps to relax the earnings rule in respect of married women whose husbands are disabled and in receipt of National Insurance Benefit owing to their incapacity to work.

Mr. Swingler: I naturally sympathise with such households and appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern for them. As has previously been said, this rule is being studied in the context of the wider problems of provision for dependency and for long-term incapacity in the new national insurance scheme.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is it not the truth that the Government are so poor and so much in debt that they cannot even afford this minor concession? What would it cost? Will the hon. Gentleman bring this in when the review comes in?

Mr. Swingler: No, Sir. The truth is that a whole series of improvements have been made in social benefits over a long period, based on a careful judgment of priorities. This matter is being carefully considered in relation to the White Paper which the Government will shortly be publishing.

Mr. J. T. Price: Can my hon. Friend tell the House how far the earnings rule in respect of married women was relaxed


during the 13 years prior to 1964, when the Conservative Party administered this Department?

Mr. Swingler: The answer, of course, is not at all, but the earnings rule was relaxed in respect of pensioners by this Government. Likewise, we have been carefully considering the earnings rule in relation to dependants.

Dame Irene Ward: With regard to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale), how many reports and how many recommendations will we need? How many times has this concession been asked for in Parliament? How long will democracy have to wait to have; its ideas implemented by an Executive who made all sorts of promises during the election campaign which have not been kept?

Mr. Swingler: It is not a question of the number of reports or the number of times that the question has been raised, but of the judgment about how to improve the social benefits. They have been improved in a variety of ways over a long period since this Government came in, and we still have to make a judgment on the earnings rule for dependants.

Social Survey (Research)

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Secretary of State for the Social Services when the research departments of the former Ministries of Health and Social Security will be combined; and whether these will be co-ordinated with the research activities of the Government's Social Survey.

Mr. Crossman: We shall get on with this as fast as possible. As for the second part of the Question, existing arrangements for the co-ordination of the work of the Government Social Survey already take account of the requirements of the two former Ministries and they will continue.

Mr. Baker: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the social research activities of the two former Ministries have, on the whole, been inadequate, and that it would be sensible to coordinate them all with the Government's social survey, about 90 per cent. of whose work in any event has been occupied with social matters?

Mr. Crossman: I will consider this, but one must remember that there are a number of other Departments which use the social survey, and contact is made through a co-ordinating official committee. It may be desirable to do this, but my main job at present is to get on with what the hon. Gentleman first asked about—ensuring that we have a really efficient Department in the merged Ministries.

Mr. Worsley: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a crying need for better intelligence right across this field? Would he not consider the whole of the research activity of the Government, and outside the Government, in this context?

Mr. Crossman: I would agree. One of the things which I discovered when I was Minister of Housing three or four years ago was this crying need. We have greatly improved the research and have many more statisticians working for us, but now, of course, there is an acute shortage, because everyone wants statisticians and some people pay more.

Scientology

Mr. Hordern: asked the Secretary of State for the Social Services if he will now publish a White Paper on the practice of Scientology.

Mr. Crossman: I have nothing to add at present to my right hon. Friend's reply on 15th October to my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. William Hamilton).—[Vol. 770, c. 81.]

Mr. Hordern: Does not the Secretary of State appreciate that it is absolutely essential for the Government to produce the evidence which they already have to support the action which they have already taken? Given the propensity of the scientologists to issue writs, is it not essential both for the Press and for the public to have a full document from which they can quote in freedom?

Mr. Crossman: I am very much aware that this is a very important problem, and I have reflected on it a great deal, even before I took over this Department. But the hon. Gentleman will see the importance of my reflecting very carefully at the


next stage. I promise him that, if he puts down another Question next time he will get an answer.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I welcome the Government's action already, but would my right hon. Friend understand that there is a good deal of interest on this side of the House as well as on the other about the issue and that the facts as they are known should be given as much publicity as possible?

Mr. Crossman: I appreciate that there is great of interest on both sides. It is not only a question of facts. There are very important principles involved which I am seriously considering.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Since the right hon. Gentleman has reflected on the subject and is noted for his academic brilliance, would he say in one brief, concise sentence, exactly what Scientology is?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, I think I could: it is a fraud.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Even though the practice of Scientology may be a fraud, would my right hon. Friend agree that, unless the evidence is available to the Government to prosecute its sponsors for fraud, the less they meddle in matters which are really for individual judgment the better it would be, and that it would be more helpful to make that information available than to use their draconian powers in order to limit it?

Mr. Crossman: The questions which are now being asked show, I think, my wisdom in saying that a moment's reflection is required before one takes a very important decision. There is a good deal in what my hon. Friend says, but it is only one side of a very awkward question.

National Health Service (Green Paper)

Mr. Arthur Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he intends to initiate discussion with interested parties on the proposals contained in the Green Paper on the National Health Service; and what timetable he has for implementing the resulting conclusions.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services

what discussions he is having with the various bodies concerned with the Green Paper on the new structure of the National Health Service; how many of them have reported their views to him in writing; and what extension of time he has given to enable the remainder to do so.

Mr. Crossman: The time for submitting views in writing has been extended to (at latest) the end of January and I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer given on 25th October to the hon. Members for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) and Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). Up to 31st October, 46 bodies had submitted their comments. I shall need to study the views expressed before considering what form the next stages in consultation should take. Because the Green Paper is Green not White, the question of a timetable for implementation does not yet arise.—[Vol. 770, c. 391–2.]

Mr. Jones: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the growing concern in local government circles which quite properly expect that the Royal Commission's Report will lead to a devolving of responsibility from the Government? Is he not aware that they view with apprehension the movement of services of this sort to nominated bodies rather than elected councils?

Mr. Crossman: If I understand the question aright, the hon. Gentleman should be glad that we are postponing until January any possibility of reaching a decision. As the Maud Commission's Report clearly must be considered before we come to a conclusion, there cannot be any harm in giving people more time carefully to reflect on the Green Paper.

Social Security Offices

Mr. William Price: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many towns with a population of 57,000 or more have had their social security offices reduced to caller office status.

Mr. Pentland: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 17th June.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 766, c. 99.]

Mr. Price: Does my hon. Friend agree that while amalgamations in small communities may make sense, it is ludicrous


to reduce a town with a catchment area of 75,000 to a corner office with a staff of one man and one girl? Why was Rugby the only town anywhere near this size to be attacked in this manner?

Mr. Pentland: I cannot undertake that there will not be similar plans in years to come in comparable towns, but I understand my hon. Friend's feelings. He met the previous Minister of Social Security on 23rd October and she undertook to consider the points he had raised with the deputation. He knows that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be writing to him on this matter.

National Health Service (Family Planning) Act, 1967

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the implementation of the National Health Service (Family Planning) Act, 1967.

Mr. Brooks: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the response of local authorities to his circular 15/67 concerning family planning services.

Mr. Ennals: I cannot at present add to the reply given on 16th July by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short).—[Vol. 736, c. 1236.]

Mr. St. John-Stevas: What is the policy of the Ministry towards the provision by local authorities of birth control information to the unmarried, particularly to the unmarried who are under 21, or who are under 16?

Mr. Ennals: This subject was included in the circular which my right hon. Friend sent to local authorities when advising them following the passing of the Act. There is a sign that a number of authorities are taking action, but I recognise: that there has been rather a slow response from a number of authorities and that the situation is still not satisfactory.

Invalids (Passenger-carrying Vehicles)

Mr. Loveys: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he

will seek to extend the category of persons qualifying for passenger-carrying vehicles available for invalids.

Mr. Snow: My right hon. Friend is unable to consider further extensions at present.

Mr. Loveys: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the present very limited categories produce unfair anomalies and hardship, particularly for disabled husbands who wish to take their wives as passengers? Will he not look at this again?

Mr. Snow: I absolutely agree that this matter should be looked at constantly. That is why in an earlier Answer I said that it was an appropriate matter for discussion with my right hon. Friend when he meets the Joint Council for the Mobility of the Disabled.

Occupational Pension Schemes

Mr. Tapsell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will seek to ensure fair and reasonable conditions for occupation pension schemes when he introduces the new Earnings-Related National Pensions Scheme.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will give an assurance that he will not introduce a state graduated pension system to supersede existing private occupational pension arrangements.

Mr. Crossman: The Government welcome the development of occupational schemes and see a continuing and important rôle for them alongside the new State provision.

Mr. Tapsell: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, when drawing up the White Paper, that there is widespread concern among 12 million of his fellow countrymen, who have so far saved about £9,000 million in these schemes, that his new proposals may either damage the existing schemes or at least reduce their rate of future growth?

Mr. Crossman: I am aware that there is concern about this, certainly among those who run occupational pension schemes. I share their concern. One of the most difficult problems we must solve is precisely how to establish a new,


genuine State occupational scheme which fits in with present schemes. I have had to spend more time and thought on this issue than on most others, but I believe that we have worked out a solution which the hon. Gentleman will find, when he sees it, to be fair.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Would the Secretary of State make a statement about the transferability of pension rights? If private occupational schemes are to continue, something must be done on this score. Is he aware that those who at present belong to these schemes are, when they change their jobs, losing their pension rights at the rate of £1 million a week?

Mr. Crossman: I am aware of the problem. I hope that the subject will be dealt with, together with the pension plan, in the White Paper. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter further, I suggest that he tables a Question to the First Secretary.

Widows

Mr. Tapsell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will remedy the anomalies in the provision for widows, especially the age qualification of 50 years.

Mr. Swingler: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the publication of our proposals for a new scheme of National Insurance later this winter.

Old People's Homes (Staff)

Mr. Costain: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he plans to take to reduce the present high rate of turnover of staff for old people's homes.

Mr. Hornby: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he intends to take to increase the number of qualified staff for old people's homes.

Mr. Snow: Discussions are in progress aimed at the early start of new training courses for these staff, and training should help to reduce turnover. Conditions of service are also an important factor, but this is a matter for the employing local authorities, who are, I am confident, well aware of the position.

Mr. Costain: Does the Minister appreciate the special difficulties occasioned

by people working in these hospitals and the need to give them special pay? Is it not true that only those who are dedicated spend long periods of their lives doing this work? Will he make it easier for them?

Mr. Snow: I have visited many of these old people's homes, and the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the conditions of work in them need to be improved. Pay considerations come with in the responsibilities of the appropriate Whitley Council. I have been impressed by the sterling work that is done by some married couples in this matter. At present no training arrangement is authorised, and that is being looked into.

Mr. Hornby: Is it not a fact that about 80 per cent. of those doing this work are without any training qualifications? Is not this an unduly high figure?

Mr. Snow: Yes, Sir. It is high, and that is why we are now trying to organise a training formula; and this should result in more qualified people being recruited.

Fluoridation (Report)

Mr. John Hall: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if the further progress report on the fluoridation experiment done in Anglesey, Kilmarnock, Watford and Andover in 1955 and 1956 will be published before the end of this year.

Mr. Ennals: We expect to publish the report early in the New Year.

Mr. Hall: The Minister told me on 13th February last that a report would be published "before long". Would he agree that that would seem to indicate to an ordinary person that it would be published within, say, a few months? What has caused the delay?

Mr. Ennals: The statistical work is now complete and is being considered by the Fluoridisation Research Committee. There will be no avoidable delay. I could not anticipate the results, which will be published very soon.

Disabled People (Aids and Appliances)

Mr. Hornby: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how he intends to improve the administrative procedure of delivery of aids and appliances to the disabled.

Mr. Ennals: My right hon. Friend proposes no immediate changes, but he will examine the various suggestions that have been made.

Mr. Hornby: Would the hon. Gentleman undertake to do this with some urgency, since the distress caused by some of the delays that have been reported are, as he knows, extremely serious?

Mr. Ennals: Yes, Sir. That matter will be looked into. An important report has been submitted by the B.M.A. Planning Unit on Aids for the Disabled. Some of its proposals raise complications, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter will be looked into urgently.

Retirement Pension

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will introduce legislation to make it possible that, in circumstances where one partner of a couple drawing retirement pension is pre vented by ill health from work, that partner's earning entitlement can be transferred to the other.

Mr. Pentland: No, Sir. The level of earnings at which reductions from pension begin is fixed to support the retirement condition and it would, therefore, be inconsistent to have a higher limit for a particular group of retirement pensioners. The hon. Gentleman has written about a rather different type of case, and I shall be, replying to him shortly.

Mr. Farr: I am obliged to the Minister for his courtesy. Is it not grossly unfair that when a husband is unfit to earn anything at all, all the dependant's portion of the pension is stopped if the wife earns more than £2 16s. a week?

Mr. Pentland: Provision is explicitly made in the regulations for the reasonable cost of making provision for the care of a member of the kind of household about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned.

Benefit Payments (Suspected Fraud)

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps officials of his Department take to investigate the background of persons alleged to be obtaining benefits to which they are not entitled before prosecutions are preferred against them.

Mr. Swingler: Officers inquiring into cases of suspected fraud are required to report any facts about the health or family circumstances of the suspected person which might affect the decision whether to prosecute, and special inquiries on such matters are made where appropriate.

Mr. Lyon: Would my hon. Friend not agree that it would be better to have formal machinery, something like the probation officer's report in court cases, which would always be available to officers so that they could evaluate the background and decide whether the offence had been caused because a man was socially maladjusted in some way?

Mr. Swingler: I would like to consider that suggestion. If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind I would be very pleased to look at it.

FLOODS

Mr. Ellis (by Private Notice): Mr. Ellis (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will make a statement on the serious flooding which occurred over the weekend.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): There was flooding in York and the Department was in touch with the city council through our regional office yesterday and this morning. About 150 houses were affected and a few people had to be found temporary accommodation. The city welfare department had no difficulty in coping with the problem.
Officers of the corporation have been meeting, and know well the help which is available from Government sources. The Department is arranging for heaters to be made available for drying out houses. The level of the Ouse is now falling and no further danger is expected. There was some flooding also in other places, but the police report that this affected relatively few houses.

Mr. Ellis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when we have such occurrences as this, and this is the third recently, the weather warnings are the responsibility of the "Met" office, which is Ministry of Defence; flood warnings are the responsibility of the local river board, which is Ministry of Agriculture,


while responsibility for contacting and warning households is that of the police, who come under the Home Office? Finally, he is called in only at the stage when it is a question of clearing up the mess. Does he not think that the time has arrived when we should have one Minister co-ordinating all the actions of the various Ministries?

Mr. Greenwood: The important point was the amount of warning which the river authority was able to give. The authority was able to give 36 hours warning on this occasion, which seems to be reasonably satisfactory.

Mr. Graham Page: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the grave public concern felt at the repeated floodings recently, and the feeling that the Government and the public bodies concerned are acting, in a rather piecemeal way, without any well-considered plan as the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question showed? Does he recollect that on 24th October he said, in reply to a Question, that when his Departmental inquiry was complete he would issue guidance to local authorities?
Would he consider putting that in a White Paper for the House to consider, so that we may discuss and debate this as an overall national policy, instead of dealing piecemeal with local matters?

Mr. Greenwood: The Government have undertaken research into the long-term causes of flooding, which is being conducted by the Department of Education and Science. As for the lessons to be drawn from the recent floods, we shall be issuing very shortly a circular to local authorities giving advice in the light of recent experience. That circular will be available to hon. Members.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents are deeply grateful for the immediate offer of help which was made as soon as flooding affected their homes yesterday? Is he also aware that they expressed some anxiety over the fact that this is the second time that the river has risen to 14 ft. 6 ins. this year and that this is an almost unprecedented situation?
Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the pattern over recent years has shown a continual number of floodings with an increasing height of the river?

Will he agree that this seems to be caused not so much by the weather as by better drainage in agricultural areas? Does this not require an overall national policy, and would he set up a Departmental committee to consider the implications of such a policy?

Mr. Greenwood: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for what he said about the feeling in York. I immediately asked for contact to be made with the Lord Mayor, to offer any necessary help.
The question of flood prevention is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to that Ministry is with me and will no doubt have noted the point of my hon. Friend.

Sir D. Renton: In view of the division of responsibility among various Departments, and the obvious improvisation which has had to take place during many of the floods this year, is it not time for the House to consider the matter in a full debate, in Government time?

Mr. Greenwood: No one would welcome a debate on this more than I should, provided that right hon. Gentlemen opposite ask for it through the usual channels.

Mr. Leadbitter: Does not my right hon. Friend consider it difficult to reconcile the firm indication that the Government gave earlier, that they were trying to find a solution, with the fact that there are now two new Departments since he last answered my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis)? Are there not too many people involved? Can we have an assurance that, in the short term, we will get round to the question of providing compensation?

Mr. Greenwood: The question of floods is a long-term question which cannot be settled in a matter of weeks. The real test was the speed with which local authorities could be given help if they require it. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon), who represents the city most affected, that it was perfectly satisfied with the provision made by the Ministry.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Following the flooding in the South-East at the end of September, the Minister of Defence told me, in the middle of October, that the


"Met" Office would be issuing "flash" warnings in future when rainfall was sufficient to bring about flooding. Could he say whether the people of Yorkshire received those "flash" warnings from the "Met" Office?

Mr. Greenwood: Bearing in mind that the people of Yorkshire got 36 hours warning, I do not think that additional "flash" warnings were necessary. The police had the matter completely in hand.

Mr. Farr: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for parts of the city and County of Leicester this is the second time that they have been flooded within three months, and that they are now looking for rapid and effective action by the Government before winter really begins?

Mr. Greenwood: The question of flood prevention is for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will pursue that with the appropriate Minister.

EDUCATION (SCHOOL MEALS)

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Edward Short): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about free school meals.
The Government have decided to bring to an end next April the scheme under which free school meals were provided to the fourth and subsequent children of large families, irrespective of parental income. Meals will, of course, continue to be provided free of charge for children whose parents cannot pay the charge without financial help.

Sir E. Boyle: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, first, what saving this decision will bring about and, secondly, while recognising the arguments in favour of this decision, may I ask him to assure the House that he will consult the local authorities, so as to safeguard the position of those large families with the lowest incomes? Finally, could he tell the House whether there are any further post-Bassetlaw announcements that we can expect during the week?

Mr. Short: Working backwards, there are no further announcements as far as I am concerned. Secondly, we have gone

to great trouble, as the right hon. Gentle-man knows, during last year to inform parents about their rights in this matter. We have asked local authorities to do all in their power to avoid embarrassment to children.
The saving from this is £4 million a year, the greater part of which has been going to people who do not need it. I believe that this £4 million, from the point of view of doing greatest good to the greatest number, can be more wisely applied.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the Minister say whether this also applies to Scotland? Is he aware that when free milk for secondary school children was cut, special stress was laid on this free meal aspect?

Mr. Short: This also applies to Scotland. I hope that my hon. Friend will also have noticed that last month family allowances were increased. We have also, twice this year, increased the parental income scale, which relieves certain people from paying for school meals.

Mr. Thorpe: Are we to take it that this is a further extension of the public cuts following devaluation? Has it not been the policy of successive Governments, at least in taxation matters, that parents of larger families are those who should be assisted rather than hit? Is he aware that many people do not accept the need for a means test among individual parents in the same schools?

Mr. Short: This is not a cut. It is simply using resources much more wisely. All the children who need free meals can get free meals. There is no need to give the money to quite wealthy people with large incomes.

Mr. Murray: Is the Secretary of State aware that this will cause a great deal of hardship for those families near the poverty line? If he intends to proceed with this, will he consider calling local education authorities together so as to get a simplified scheme for those who need school meals, obviating the need for them to fill in very long double-sided forms which ask lots of complicated questions, such as that, which he can see, issued by the Kent Education Committee?

Mr. Short: I should be very glad to take up any case of long, complicated


forms. We have asked the local authorities to do everything in their power to avoid any kind of embarrassment to children and parents in this matter.

Mr. Costain: The Minister said that this was not a cut in the policy of free meals. Will he tell us what a cut would be?

Mr. Short: We are applying this £4 million more sensibly to help many more children.

Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the shortness of his original statement shocked and surprised many hon. Members on this side of the House and that no substantive reason for this action has been advanced? Is he aware that giving the free meal concession for the fourth child was an easy, sensible and socially acceptable way of identifying children who are in need of these meals?
What research has the Department done to distinguish between those from large families who are wealthy and take advantage of this concession and the great number in my constituency who have taken advantage of it for the first time? Should not this be considered instead of separating the sheep from the goats?

Mr. Short: I do not think that we want to separate them into sheep and goats. If children need the free meal they will get it. We are simplifying this process and trying to avoid embarrassment to children. I thought that the political philosophy of this side of the House was to do the greatest good to the greatest number. Here is a sum of money which could be more wisely applied to benefit a greater number of people.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: May I ask a simple question. Did the right hon. Gentleman consult the Minister of Transport before reaching this decision?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us are getting a little fed up with hearing of cuts applied to those on the lowest incomes while, at the same time, we read that the Government are talking about paying £2,000 a year to members of another place, many of whom already have vast

incomes? Are they to be treated on a means test basis?

Mr. Short: I do not know anything about another place, but I know that there are no cuts for people on low incomes. People with low incomes will benefit by getting free meals.

Mr. Frederic Harris: The right hon. Gentlement suggested applying the cut, which is not supposed to a cut, in a better way. Will he tell us in what way he intends to apply it?

Mr. Short: We had better wait to see how education services develop over the next few months.

Mr. Shinwell: Because of the importance of this matter, will my right hon. Friend hold it up until the opinion of the House has been sought? Is it to be the practice of the Government that, without any kind of consultation either with the House or Government supporters, they expect us to accept proposals without a protest? May I have an answer?

Mr. Short: My right hon. Friend knows as well as I what to do if he wants to test the opinion of the House on this matter.

Mr. Ridsdale: May I press the Minister again to say whether this is a cut or not? Where is this £4 million to be spent?

Mr. Short: The hon. Member had better wait until he sees the Education Estimates for next year and how the money is to be spent.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the response to the previous circular showed that the take-up of free meals in the past had been very poor indeed and that even now there is a great deal of evidence to show that it could go a great deal further? From where did he get the figure of £4 million, and how is it divided between those who have a fourth child and do not need the free meal and those who do need it?

Mr. Short: Of course, £4 million is an estimate, but it is a very carefully worked out estimate and I believe that it is reliable.
With reference to the number, my hon. Friend has a point. The number not taking up free meals is very considerable. That is why my predecessor sent out the circular last winter. As a result the take-up increased by 100,000.

Sir R. Cary: In view of the reception given to the Minister's announcement, would it not be much wiser to withdraw the proposal and to reconsider it with the local education committees?

Mr. Short: I think that we had better wait to see what reception there is throughout the country among local authority associations and parents who have fewer than four children.

Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this short and sad statement was hardly in keeping with the Prime Minister's statement about participation in all affairs. Therefore, can my right hon. Friend paradoxically add to it and, in a shorter statement, withdraw the first one? Does he believe that we in this House accept that the economy of Britain has to be assisted by filching £4 million from the eating habits of school children?

Mr. Short: I do not think that it makes sense to give £4 million, or a large proportion of it, to people who do not need it.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that education is carrying more than its share of cuts, bearing in mind the cuts in university building? What does he consider a low income for a family with four children? What does he think is a low income for a family with six or seven children?

Mr. Short: I will not comment on the last question. The income limit has recently been raised. In the case of a family with four children it is £16 10s.

Mr. Richard: Can my right hon. Friend give one assurance, however—that the object of the statement he has made is not merely to save money on the educational budget, generally, but that it is his intention specifically to apply the moneys he may save by this particular saving to other matters which at the moment are being under-financed, if he thinks that that is necessary?

Mr. Short: I have said over and over again that the purpose is to apply these resources more wisely.

Mr. Howie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am the father of four children? I do not mind buying their dinners at school or anywhere else and I am sure that would be strongly supported by many on this side of the House. But can he assure us that this saving of £4 million will be reapplied within the educational budget?

Mr. Short: I keep saying that the object is to use the £4 million much more wisely than it is being used.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House.

Mr. Frank Allaun: On a point of order. May I ask whether this proposal will require legislation to be passed through this House, because, if so, my right hon. Friend will not get it?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a question for Mr. Speaker. I gather that the Minister heard what the hon. Member said.

Orders of the Day — QUEEN'S SPEECH

DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS

[Fourth Day]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [30th October]:

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

Question again proposed.

Mr. Speaker: May I announce to the House that I have selected the two Amendments in the names of the Leader of the Opposition and his right hon. Friends, one to be taken today and the other tomorrow.
I understand, however—and I think that the whole House will be aware—that today's Amendment relating to the Post Office will not be moved until 7 o'clock, so that up to that time we can continue the broad general debate.
May I add that many hon. Members wish to raise many different topics, some of which have not yet been ventilated in the debate on the Address. I hope that those whom I call will be reasonably brief.

3.48 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I wish to refer to one aspect of the Gracious Speech which, in my opinion, is far more far-reaching in its significance for the people of this country and their institutions than any other proposal announced. I refer to the proposed consultations on the appointment of a Commission on the Constitution.
Since I appear to be opening this debate, perhaps I might briefly refresh the memory of the House on the proposed terms of reference of the Commission as indicated by the Prime Minister last week. The right hon. Gentleman said that this was a matter for discussion, but that the Government felt
that the terms of reference might…be:

to examine the present functions of the central legislature and government in relation to the several countries, nations and regions of the United Kingdom;
to consider, having regard to developments in local government organisation and in the administration and other relationships between the various parts of the United Kingdom, what changes, in the interests of prosperity and good government, are desirable in those functions or otherwise in present constitutional and economic relationships;
to consider, also, whether any changes are desirable in the constitutional and economic relationships between the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th October 1968; Vol. 772, c. 35–6.]
I am relieved that we are able to debate this subject this afternoon. I am staggered that the official Opposition have not selected this subject as one of the major topics for debate and that not even one Tory back bencher has tabled an Amendment concerning this. Faced with the frustration which, in certain cases, has turned to bitterness, and, even more, to demands for total separation from the rest of the United Kingdom, a mature electorate believe that they are increasingly denied the right to participate in their own affairs. I therefore find the reaction and the priorities of the Opposition amazing.
It is only fair to say, however, that the Tory Opposition have never been in in the vanguard of progress in the matter of constitutional reform, whether in the case of Ireland or whether it was in curbing the power of the House of Lords. Perhaps the only constitutional change for which the Tories show any enthusiasm at the moment is for granting independence to a small racial minority in Rhodesia. It is perhaps for that reason that the Prime Minister can expect loyal support for his efforts to achieve just that.
Faced with demands from the people to be allowed to share in the power of the country, I would only say, and then I leave the Opposition, that just as Marie Antoinette said to the starving crowds that they could eat cake, so the Tory Party says to a frustrated electorate, "Let them have a debate on the Post Office".
Why is it that the electorate today feel frustrated? Where is their frustration centred? Can it be cured? How should the Commission proceed?


I believe that there is a feeling of frustration in the operation of Parliament itself. People increasingly believe that the House has inadequate power to check either the policy or the expenditure of successive Executives. If, for example, we had had an effective Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, the events of 1956 would have been thrashed out, the dilatoriness of our attitude towards Europe would have been debated, the attitude of the Government, right or wrong, on Vietnam would have come under much greater pressure, and the same is true of our supply of arms to Nigeria.
If there had been a Select Committee on Defence, with real power, I doubt whether we would have wasted £1,000 million on defence contracts which have been totally cancelled. I doubt whether any Government would have got away, for example, with maintaining the independent nuclear power position of Britain without adequate parliamentary debate of that position. I very much doubt whether any Government could have survived for so long before being converted to a withdrawal east of Suez. Indeed, I very much doubt whether, had there been a proper system of control over the Executive, the Postmaster-General would have dared to slip through his new postal charges without facing a debate first.
Therefore, I hope that, whatever the Commission does, one effect will be to make Parliament an effective body which can be the inquest of the nation. I suggest that this can be done only by devolving power from Parliament to the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.
The second sphere where I suggest that there is frustration is in the nations of these islands themselves. Scotland and Wales are proud nations. They have been, in their view—I think rightly—predominantly dominated by English Parliaments and certainly denied the right to run their own affairs. I profoundly disagree with the cure of separation which has been advocated in some quarters in Scotland and Wales, because I believe that all of us in these islands have much to benefit from maintaining the unity of these islands.
However, as one who is proud to be at least three-quarters Celt, I sympathise, even in the case of those who take that

extreme position, with the sense of national pride which has turned their feeling into that of anger and hostility. For example, Scotland has built up a Civil Service which largely operates from Edinburgh. Surely it is only logical that it should be under Scottish Parliamentary control. She has her own legal system. She has been a proud kingdom. Wales has her own language.
I hope that the second thing which the Commission will achieve is to accord Parliaments to Wales and Scotland and see that they are able to run their own affairs. Indeed, I would like to see not only equality of opportunity but these two nations able to achieve full nationhood.
A third place where I think there is frustration is in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that even the most enthusiastic apologist for the Stormont régime would deny that there are tensions in Northern Ireland and that they are very largely based on the division between men and women of different religions. The Prime Minister of Ulster has, certainly in speeches, gone some way to try to control the wild men in his own Administration, but are that Government likely to increase confidence in the genuineness of their intentions to lower the tensions between different religions when they refuse to bring in and apply the Race Relations Act to Northern Ireland which we have here, when they refuse to extend the activities of the Parliamentary Commissioner whom we have here, and when, on four occasions they have refused my own Liberal colleague in the Stormont Parliament permission to introduce a Bill of Human Rights? It is for them to say whether that increases or decreases the confidence in the genuineness of their intentions.
Indeed, can it be said that it is exactly encouraging religious co-operation that it was not until 1963 that any Minister in Northern Ireland visited a Roman Catholic school, yet one-third of the population is Roman Catholic? Again, people are entitled to belong to societies which may belong to one particular religion to the exclusion of all others. Certainly, that is a right. Are those hon. Members who are Ulster Unionists, who are also members of the Orange Order, particularly happy that one of their Unionist colleagues in the Stormont, Mr.


Phelim O'Neill, was expelled from the Orange Order because he happened to attend a civic service in a Catholic church in his own constituency at Ballymoney?
Again, can it be said that there is a real attempt to bring about democracy when the franchise of the local government vote relates only to householders but with plural voting for some people who have business premises, and excludes a very large minority who are not householders, and when, in Londonderry, 30 per cent. of the population have a 60 per cent. majority on the council? It is not as if there is any urgent feeling in the present Government there for reform, because when the 1967 White Paper on Local Government was issued there was specifically no mention of local government franchise.

Mr. John Hynd: Will the right hon. Gentleman assist me to follow his argument by explaining how the point which he makes at this stage supports what he said earlier about the desirability of regional Governments for Scotland and Wales?

Mr. Thorpe: As I shall show, I believe in the unity of these islands because I want equal economic opportunity for people wherever they live. That is why I am in favour of the federal system and against dividing up these islands. However, as I shall seek to show, one of the obligations placed upon those who wish to enjoy economic opportunities wherever they may live is that of ensuring that people have the same standards of human rights in every part of the United Kingdom.
One of the jobs of the Commission—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman but he must either discuss something for which this Government are responsible or he must argue that, in view of the matters which he is putting to the House, the Government ought to change the law

Mr. Thorpe: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker.
Because of the Government's responsibilities under Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920—which, I

hope, are being discussed today between Mr. O'Neill and our Prime Minister—all the matters to which I have referred, religious discrimination, a plural franchise, the Special Powers Act, and the discrimination which has clearly been exercised, are subjects which, in my view, should come within the purview of the Commission when it considers the whole case.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but this is an interesting constitutional question. He has raised questions concerning local government, law and order, discrimination and the like. Does he suggest that under any new federal system for the United Kingdom, such as he advocates, powers in respect of all these matters should be reserved to the central Government and should not be entrusted to locally elected Parliaments?

Mr. Thorpe: I am saying that, if the constitutional Commission is to do its job properly, the whole relationship between this House and all the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, whether the Channel Islands, Scotland, Wales, or Ulster, must be brought within its purview. Further, I say that experience in and with regard to Northern Ireland since 1920 has led me to believe that either an amendment to the 1920 Act is needed, or, alternatively, the Government must reconsider some of the Conventions to which they have adhered since. It is ironic that the 1920 Act was entitled
'An Act to provide for the better Government of Ireland".
I should like to see, perhaps, a fresh Act providing for the even better Government of Ireland.
In regard to Wales, Scotland and Ireland, time and again in our history, because we have refused to grant in logic what people have demanded, we have had change wrung from us after violence. It has happened, and it will happen again.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I am following the right hon. Gentleman's argument with interest and sympathy. He has raised the vast topics of the reform of Parliament, relations with and between Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions,


and several other matters. Is it not an abdication of our duty to put these vast questions to a Commission? Ought we not to deal with them in this House instead of handing them to an appointed body over the composition of which we have no control? Are they not fundamental issues which we should settle here, and do we not shelve them by handing them to a Commission of that kind?

Mr. Thorpe: I have some sympathy with that view. It is a vast subject. The trouble is that this Parliament as at present constituted is so overloaded, so ill equipped and so ill serviced to undertake a job of this magnitude that I should like to see a Royal Commission, if it is to be a Royal Commission, as the Prime Minister suggested, having within it sub-commissions which would go into specific questions and advise us on such matters as economic viability, dual taxation, consolidation in matters of law reform, and so on. Obviously, the final decision must rest with the House. I have always believed that, and I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members do.
However, I am sure that a Royal Commission could do a useful exploratory job in putting forward various proposals and, on occasion, expressing an opinion on them. If it is to do its job, it must be representative of the peoples who are being consulted. For example, it would not be for us in the House of Commons to enunciate a great prognosis on the future of the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands, but, when the Commission was looking in that direction and taking evidence, there would have to be sitting on it assessors from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. But that is a matter for discussion, and I am sure that I take the hon. Gentleman with me when I say that this House must have the ultimate decision.
The fourth area in which there is frustration is in England itself. We see all about us a growing number of boards, councils and committees which are subject to no control: for example, the regional economic planning boards which are, in effect, civil servants appointed by Whitehall, the regional economic planning councils, which are appointed by Ministers, and so on. Hospitals and electricity and gas supply were previously under the local authorities and now they are under nationalised boards, and con

sumers' advisory councils give a totally inadequate form of public control.
Whether we look to the management of schools, the appointment of magistrates, the handling of planning appeals which have to go direct to Whitehall, or such simple questions as a 30 m.p.h. speed limit for a road leading to a primary school, the centralisation of power today is such that these matters have to go to Whitehall, with the probability of a six months' delay. I want to see an urgent reform so that this sphere of public influence can come under properly elected democratic control.
My conception of the desirable outcome of the Commission is this. First, I should want this Parliament to be purely federal. It should deal merely with defence, foreign affairs, economic and social planning on the widest scale, the nationalised industries, power supplies, Customs and Excise, agriculture and fisheries, and a form of federal taxation. I should hope that the federal Parliament would have members sent from all the nations, perhaps even from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man as well. The numbers here would be cut by, perhaps, a third or a half. It would have a Cabinet of only about 15 and a Government of 40 to 50, and it would have real control over federal affairs.
At the next stage, I should hope that the outcome of the Commission would be an examination of the possibility of domestic Parliaments for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and, I add, for England as well. This last point was closely debated at the Liberal Party conference this autumn and narrowly defeated. My own view is that the arguments go in favour of having an English Parliament to deal with exclusively English matters. Otherwise, one would have the complaint which we have now, that we in this House cannot interfere in Northern Ireland matters although Ulster Members may debate matters relating to England, as they are entitled and frequently do under the present system.
Obviously, there will have to be powers of local taxation in the domestic Parliaments. The House may recall that in the three Bills which my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) and my hon. and learned


Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and I sought to introduce last spring we put forward the idea of joint Exchequer boards to discuss questions of federal and domestic parliamentary taxation. It is a complicated issue, but it has been tackled. It has been done in Australia, in Canada, in America and in West Germany.
In my view, it would be for the domestic Parliaments to decide what should be the pattern of local government. I think that this would out-date the findings of the Maud and Wheatley Reports almost as soon as they were printed. For England, I should like to see 12 provincial assemblies. I should like to abolish the hotch-potch of county councils, county boroughs, non-county boroughs, rural and urban districts and have 12 provincial assemblies which could then revive many of the historical entities of England.
Their membership would be paid and would be elected for three-year periods. They would have charge of matters such as planning, the Green belt, roads with the exception of trunk roads, railways and road passenger transport. The regional planning boards would be turned into regional research units. There would also be regional development corporations which could raise money on the market with a view to development.
Things like hospitals, and the nationalised industries in a provincial context, would, for the first time, come under the control of democratically-elected people. I do not want to go into this in great detail, but I think that below them one would have to have district councils which would act as agents of the provincial assemblies.
If these reforms came into being, the reforms of another place which have been advocated would be of a purely transitory interest, because it should become a place to which representatives from the nations and regions of the United Kingdom could be elected, presumably by a rather more democratic system of election that we have here.
Just as it is the intention to see that no one party is dominant in another place, so I believe that no one country or region should be dominant. This is the way in which one would maintain the

constitutional checks and balances. Therefore, I hope that the Commission will be fully representative of the various nations and regions.
We have in this country one of the longest unbroken traditions of parliamentary democracy. We must realise that the system must be refashioned if we are to deal with the increasingly complicated techniques of government and accept increasing interference in our lives, much of which we regard as inevitable, and in certain cases desirable. Therefore, I hope that the Commission will get down to its work very soon, and will not be regarded as a pigeon-hole for the Government to hive off difficulties until after the next election.
I hope that we shall see a transformation of the whole structure of power and government in this country, so that we take this opportunity to revitalise our institutions, involve people in their future—we are talking about a highly mature electorate, which feels increasingly cut out of decision-taking—and restore vigour to our parliamentary system.
For those reasons I am sorry, but not surprised, that the official Opposition do not share the enthusiasm for these reforms, or at any rate for the need for reform. I believe that it is long overdue. As I have said, time and again in this country we have left it too late in our constitutional history, and have had to concede in bitterness what we could have granted in logic. I hope that that will not happen in this case. If the Commission gets down to work and reports back speedily, I believe that we can bring about one of the greatest revolutions in the way in which we run the Government and our institutions. That, more than anything else, can restore a sense of national enthusiasm and purpose to the people of these islands.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I wish to take up at some length the remarks of the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) about the area in Northern Ireland which I represent. I regret that the Gracious Speech does not contain concrete proposals for a very thorough, searching inquiry into the present situation in Northern Ireland.
I remember very well my maiden speech here just over two years ago, when


I levelled many charges at the Unionist Administration in Northern Ireland, and invited hon. Members on both sides of the House to go there and see whether the allegations I was making were true. I predicted then that if remedial action was not taken very quickly by the Government here, who had full authority under Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act to deal with the tense situation, there would be an outbreak of violence. Since then, unfortunately, I have been proved right.
Many of my hon. Friends have been to Northern Ireland, and each has reported to my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister that my charges were correct. The House can no longer afford to avoid its obligations with regard to civil liberties and human freedoms in Northern Ireland. The ultimate responsibility is that of this House, and if it refuses to take action we can only expect further recurrences of the situation in Derry on 5th October, when there was a spontaneous uprising by an oppressed people, demanding that they be given equal citizenship with other parts of the United Kingdom.
All that the people of Derry and Northern Ireland want is that the same rights and privileges enjoyed by the people of Doncaster should be afforded to the people of Derry, that the same rights and privileges enjoyed by the people of Birmingham should be enjoyed by the people of Belfast.
What are the feelings of the Opposition about this? Now is the time to question the deafening silence that has always come from the benches opposite when Northern Ireland has been mentioned. I have been here for two years. When I and many of my hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, have mentioned what was happening in Northern Ireland, there has always been silence from the Opposition benches. Only one question has been asked from them within my hearing, and that was last week, when the Leader of the Opposition asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister whether he would stand by a promise given in 1948 regarding the Constitution of Northern Ireland.
I ask the Tory Party of the United Kingdom: where does it stand in relation to the demand from Northern Ireland for civil rights and social justice? Is it

prepared to forget about its social obligations for the sake of getting 12 Tory seats from Northern Ireland at the next General Election in the hope that they will bring about the downfall of the Labour Government?
All that we have asked for in Northern Ireland is one man, one vote, which every other constituent in the United Kingdom has enjoyed since 1948. We asked that the Race Relations Act should be extended to apply to Northern Ireland, that the Parliamentary Commissioner should also cover Northern Ireland, and that there should be an inquiry into the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, to see if it should be amended. Let us remember that no Act of Parliament is sacrosanct. If it is found necessary after 48 years to amend or even repeal that Act, it is the duty of the present Government to do so.
The situation in Derry will occur again if remedial action is not taken speedily. We have heard from the Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland—the Lardner-Burke of Northern Ireland, as he is so well known, who, I understand, is here this afternoon trying to intimidate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I do not think that my right hon. Friend will be open to such intimidation. He has said about the Derry uprising that it was Communist-inspired and anarchist, meant to do away with the Northern Ireland State. The ravings of this demented man knew no bounds on this occasion, when the eyes of the United Kingdom and the world were focussed on their television sets to see the police brutality that was evident on that occasion.
It was not a riot that took place in Derry on 5th October. Many thousands of people were demanding British justice and equal citizenship with other parts of the United Kingdom. The only violence was that used by the police forces in Northern Ireland, under instructions from our Minister of Home Affairs.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Nonsense.

Mr. Fitt: You will have your opportunity to reply, and I hope that you will be able to do so

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must keep to the forms of Parliamentary debate.

Mr. Fitt: The situation in Northern Ireland has been building up for many years. I am sure that I shall have the support of my hon. Friends when I say that the present situation is in no way aimed at the achievement of an Irish Republic. The question of partition does not enter into the demand for civil rights. As one who lives in Northern Ireland, I have already clearly shown the House where my social allegiance lies. I hope that I shall live to see the day when we have a Socialist Republic in Ireland. That situation can come about only by the will of the Irish people, both north and south of the Border. I believe that the Prime Minister of the Republic last week made a statement which should not have been made in connection with the present circumstances, for the question of partition does not enter into the demand for civil rights.
The intervention by the Prime Minister of the Republic can only help his own party in the Republic and the Unionist. Party in Northern Ireland. I wonder whether there was not a coalition of ideas made between the two parties before the statement was. They are the only groups of persons who can gain.
In local government—this is the grass roots of all the troubles in Northern Ireland—we have a position in the City of Derry—it is represented by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark)—where one person has 24 local government votes and 8,000 people are denied a single local government vote. [HON MEMBERS: "Shame."] It should be remembered that this is not a sectarian battle. It is a fight for basic fundamental justice for all people. The people who are denied the local government franchise include young Protestants.
In the City of Belfast there are 64,000 persons who are denied the local government franchise. They cover all religions and none. At present, we have the People's Democracy, a student organisation, which has been formed at Queen's University, and 3,000 of its members marched the streets of Belfast a fortnight ago—and they are marching the streets of Belfast this afternoon—demanding civil rights. Three-quarters of the population of that university are Protestants.
So we should be very careful in this House not to let ourselves be side-tracked

into the idea that the demand for civil rights is either a Protestant and Catholic fight or a Republican fight. It is no such thing. It is a demand by British subjects for equal citizenship with their fellow citizens in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Captain Orr: The hon. Member does not like the form of local government franchise in Northern Ireland. That may be arguable. But the point is whether he thinks that the power to decide local government boundaries and local government franchise should be a matter for the local Parliament or for this one.

Mr. Fitt: I have made my position clear in relation to what has been said by the right hon. Member for Devon, North. I should be the last man in the world to wish to inflict a Stormont on Scotland and Wales.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Could the hon. Gentleman now answer the question that was put to him? Does he want local government to be dealt with at Stormont or here?

Mr. Fitt: It should be clearly understood that I want the local government and Parliamentary franchises in Northern Ireland to be operated from Westminster. I cannot put it more clearly.
We are in this position in Northern Ireland because for 48 years we have been subjected to the jackboot of the Unionists. This applies not only to the minority Roman Catholic, but also to ordinary working-class Protestants, who have no use for the Unionist Party machine. The collision has come about because these victims of Unionism in Northern Ireland realise that the only chance of reform must come within the lifetime of the present Government. They realise that if, unfortunately, the present Government were to be defeated at the next General Election the jackboot and the police baton would come out and be used on all those who are opposed to Unionism in their demands for civil rights.
On 11th July, in answer to a supplementary question, the Prime Minister said in this House that we cannot wait indefinitely for reforms, and that
Something must be done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1968; [Vol. 768, c. 733.]


I regard that as being a very reasonable statement. In other words, the Prime Minister wanted the same type of citizenship for people in Northern Ireland as for all other persons in the United Kingdom.
But the very next day the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), at a little Orange Lodge meeting in Northern Ireland, said, in reply to the Prime Minister's remarks:
I warn Wilson or anyone else that they will interfere with Northern Ireland at their peril.

Captain Orr: The hon. Gentleman really must not misquote me. [Interruption.] What I said was—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House wants to hear both sides. Captain Orr.

Captain Orr: What I said was "if anybody interfered with the just prerogatives of the Parliament of Northern Ireland", which is a different thing.

Mr. Fitt: What the hon. and gallant Gentleman said was "I warn Wilson".

Mr. E. Shinwell: Ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman what he would do.

Mr. Fitt: In his address to the Labour Party conference, later on, the Prime Minister said:
We are the party of human rights. We stand for the dignity of man.
Many people in Northern Ireland felt that they could agree with that philosophy, but they wondered why it was not applied to Northern Ireland. The frustration was building up, until it finally exploded on 5th October in Derry.
Less than a fortnight ago the Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland, following the action of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South, made a speech at a little Unionist Association meeting in Larne saying:
I will deal with anyone outside or inside Northern Ireland who attempts to interfere.
I and many people in Northern Ireland who support my political philosophy can interpret this only as a direct threat not only to the Prime Minister of this country, but to the whole Parliament.
Last Monday evening the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Captain O'Neill, said in a speech:
We must cease this hostility towards the United Kingdom.
Hearing those words one might be inclined to think that he was addressing a crowd of Republicans or I. R. A. men, but he was addressing a crowd of Unionists, people represented on the other side of this House. They have been having little meetings in Northern Ireland with the intention of declaring U.D.I. They have been warned by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland that U.D.I. would be sheer lunacy. I agree with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland in this context. But does not this give an indication of the serious situation in Northern Ireland?
On the day the march took place in Derry—I am addressing this remark to the Government spokesman; I myself was batoned by the police—there were all sorts of queer stories and denials from the Unionists because they realised that they should not have done this. But it highlighted what is happening in Northern Ireland. Time and time again I go to the Table Office in this House to try to put down Questions about Northern Ireland. I can table Questions about anyone else's constituency, from the Rhondda Valley to the Highlands of Scotland, but when I want to ask Questions about many things in Northern Ireland I am not allowed to do it. So it is only on an occasion such as this that we have an opportunity to discuss Northern Ireland.
More opportunity should be given to hon. Members from Northern Ireland. I realise that those who sit on the other side of the House have got together and prevented discussion of Northern Ireland matters because they did not want to spotlight them. I feel differently. I want this House to have every opportunity to discuss Northern Ireland. I believe that if the House had an opportunity to discuss the state of affairs there it would tend to lessen the injustices because those who do the injustices would realise that such matters would be raised in this House.
The riot squad of the Royal Ulster Constabulary acted quite viciously against defenceless men, women and children in Derry. I do not ask anyone to accept my


word for that. The evidence was to be seen clearly on British television screens. We are told that this House can only enter into Northern Ireland affairs in matters concerning defence, Income Tax, and so on. However, I have a statement proving conclusively that that riot squad of the R.U.C. was based overnight on United Kingdom property. The members of that squad were quartered in H.M.S. "Sea Eagle" the night before the riot and the night which followed it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is direct intervention, yet we hear time and time again that the maintenance of law and order is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Government.
Why, then, were facilities afforded by the United Kingdom Government to that riot squad of the R.U.C.? Incidentally, I and many others in Northern Ireland were very proud to hear that the ordinary members of the Royal Navy stationed in "Sea Eagle" wanted nothing to do with the members of that riot squad. They had watched them and their brutal behaviour in the streets. When they returned to the base that night, the ordinary seaman of the Royal Navy wanted nothing to do with their Gestapo-like tactics.
I have a statement which appeared in a local paper and was alleged to come from the senior naval officer in Northern Ireland. It reads:
The Senior Naval Officer, Northern Ireland, will always be pleased to assist in any way in the maintenance of law and order in Northern Ireland.
I would like that statement clarified. Was permission asked of this Government for the taking over of part of the barracks by that band of R.U.C. men?
I understand that the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland will say in the course of his discussions with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that he and his Government will abolish the multiple company vote. He wants my right hon. Friend and the Parliament and people of this country to accept that as a great concession, as another step along the road to reform.
However, the hon. Member for Londonderry, in a letter to the Observer yesterday, quoted a statement by the Minister for Home Affairs in Northern Ireland on

the company vote. The statement was made in Larne on 26th October. The Minister for Home Affairs said:
If the company vote were to be abolished tomorrow its effect in practical terms would be infinitesimal. The company vote in its present form is unlikely to have a say in any future local government structure, but tinkering with the franchise alone will not solve problems.
Could that be accepted as a concession? I do not think so. I do not want any tinkering with the franchise system. I want a complete change. I want the whole electoral system in Northern Ireland brought into line with that operating in other parts of the United Kingdom.
I am sure that the House will realise how this subject affects so many people in Northern Ireland. Until the next Gracious Speech, probably I shall not have an opportunity to go on at such length about the problems of my constituents. The Prime Minister of Northern Ireland has been Prime Minister of that country for six years. When he took office, many in Northern Ireland felt that at last there would be changes. However, after six years, we find ourselves in the same position as we were in when he took over.
I say this to the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, through the agency of this House. Captain O'Neill does not realise the support that he would have in Northern Ireland for the introduction of reforms. The people are far ahead of him. If he would only have the courage to go to the Dispatch Box in Stormont and initiate reforms to give us equal citizenship, he would have a virtual avalanche of support and good will from all sections of the community and from people of all religions.
The exceptions to that statement are not the types of people in Northern Ireland who project the liberal approach. They are those hon. Gentlemen opposite who represent Northern Ireland constituencies. I know that it has been resented bitterly on this side of the House that, between 1964 and 1966, the apostles of Unionism came to this House from Northern Ireland and voted in Division after Division attempting to bring about the downfall of the Labour Government.
My hon. Friends are frustrated every time that they attempt to ask Questions about what is happening in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Down,


South is on record as saying that we cannot be second-class Members of Parliament. However, the only second-class hon. Members that there are in the House representing Northern Ireland constituencies sit on the benches opposite.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: If the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) attended this House regularly, he would know that a week never passes without one or more of my hon. Friends asking serious economic Questions in relation to Northern Ireland, and that we initiate regular debates about Northern Ireland affairs. If the hon. Gentleman came over to listen to them, he would have plenty of opportunities to discuss Northern Ireland matters.

Mr. Fitt: I believe that social justice and civil rights are just as important, if not more important, than economic matters.
The Northern Ireland Unionists sitting in this House and the Government of Northern Ireland have not been grateful for the generosity of the Government in Westminster. Only yesterday afternoon it was announced that a £25 million order was coming to the Belfast shipyard. I am delighted about that and very happy that it will lead to a great increase in the numbers employed there. However, it was the Government in Westminster who advanced the money for the improvement of that yard, and it was the improvements which ensured that the yard got the order. I think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to it in his intervention in reply to the Queen's Speech.
Many people in Northern Ireland welcome the proposals to lower the voting age to 18. However, I ask the House to ensure that the voting age in Northern Ireland is also reduced to 18—

Captain Orr: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that that decision, so far as Northern Ireland Parliamentary elections are concerned, should be taken by this House and not by the other Parliament?

Mr. Fitt: Exactly. Let me try to din it into the thick skull of the hon. Gentleman. The reason why the situation in Northern Ireland has come about is the breakdown of Parliamentary democracy there. In June or July of this year there was a very unfair allocation of a house

in Northern Ireland which proved to be the straw which broke the camel's back. The house in question was given to an unmarried girl of 19, in the face of many other deserving cases who had been on the housing list for many years.
The hon. Gentleman representing that constituency used every means available in an attempt to alter the decision. He led deputations to Ministers and initiated Adjournment debates. He ran the whole gamut of Parliamentary procedure. When they found that the decision could not be altered by Parliamentary procedures, his constituents and others who were victims of similar treatment took to the streets.
I could speak for many hours on this subject. However, I hope that I have convinced the House sufficiently about the situation in Northern Ireland. I repeat that, if the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland has the courage to take steps along the road to reform in Northern Ireland he will have my support and that of all the people whom I represent. This is not a question of the Border. It is asking for simple social justice. I say with all the sincerity at my command that if the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland wants support, he does not have to look far for it.
However—and I am being as serious as I can in the realisation of the dangerous situation which could erupt in Northern Ireland—if those steps to bring about civil rights, social justice and equal citizenship in Northern Ireland as in other parts of the United Kingdom are not taken, there will be violence and the people will then take to the streets and fight for their rights; and in that fight they will have my wholehearted support.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party made many charges of malpractice against the Government of Northern Ireland. I shall not now attempt to answer those charges. If I may do so without impertinence, I refer him to the letter which I wrote to the Observer yesterday in which he will find many of the answers. From what I heard of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I doubt whether, in the improbable event of a Liberal Government, there will be any greater success in dealing with the affairs of Ireland in future


than there was under Liberal Governments in the past.
I sometimes worry about the kind of effect which a speech like that will have, especially as it came from a more responsible quarter of the House than the speech to which we have just listened. I wonder just how much effect it will have in Northern Ireland in driving people, as I fear, back into entrenched positions in the lines they occupied years ago. Its unintentional effect will be to make the situation infinitely more difficult. I am comforted to some extent by remembering what I read in a great newspaper which, in an account of the leadership of the Liberal Party, said, "The trouble about Jeremy is that it is so difficult to take him seriously." I trust that that will apply to his speech.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Cheap. Shoddy.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: If it is cheap and shoddy, I withdraw it. The hon. Gentleman is an expert on what is cheap and shoddy.

Mr. Faulds: I am a good judge of character—shoddy little man.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I want to deal with the interesting speech to which we have just heard. Even the most demanding of connoisseurs cannot have been disappointed by the extravaganza of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) this afternoon.

Mr. Faulds: Excellent speech.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman heard most of it. I thought that at the end of it we were reaching the high point of political hypocrisy when the hon. Gentleman came to the moment of almost, but not quite, giving support to Captain O'Neill. He can have had only one reason for doing so: he knows quite well that if he voices that support—and he may have done so already—he will be of the greatest embarrassment to Captain O'Neill, because at home, if not here, the hon. Gentleman is a Republican, and an extremist, and he is so recognised.

Mr. Fitt: Mr. Fitt rose—

Mr. Chichester-Clark: No, I will not give way.

Mr. Faulds: Give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I hope that the House will allow the hon. Gentleman to make a speech.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He has had an opportunity to speak at great length in debates on Northern Ireland before now.

Mr. Faulds: Give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) must contain himself.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The hon. Member for Belfast, West has the opportunity to speak in not one Parliament, but two. He has had plenty of time to say what he wants to say, and he can do so on another occasion. For him to say that he is interested in civil rights is the most remarkable piece of political hypocrisy which I have ever heard in the House of Commons. In private, of course, he is much more frank, endearingly frank. He will say that he came to the House in order to undo partition somehow or other. He has said that to many people.

Mr. Fitt: That is a grave charge.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: It is well known.

Mr. Fitt: On a point of order. A very serious charge has been levelled against me by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark). He has said that I have said in private—by innuendo, he seemed to mean to himself, or to some other hon. Members—that I came to the House with the intention of undoing partition. I should like him to name the person to whom I am alleged to have said that, or to withdraw the remark.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Faulds: Answer.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Faulds: Answer.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) will contain himself and allow the debate to proceed.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I do not know the names of the large majority of the electors of West Belfast, but every one of them who has been to any of the hon. Gentleman's meetings has at one time or another heard him say this. Why else is he called a Republican? What else does it mean? I think that the hon. Gentleman is now making an unnecessary fuss, because he knows this quite well to be the truth.
I and many others have no faith in the political word of the hon. Gentleman. For far too long, even in the confines of the House, he has been the political peddlar of inaccuracies and terminological inexactitudes. We do not have to go too far back. Only two Queen's Speeches ago he referred to his telephone being tapped by Unionist supporters and to many other telephone tappings by Unionist supporters. At the time, he promised that he would send evidence to the Prime Minister. A year ago, I asked him whether he had sent that evidence and whether it could be seen. I have had no answer. In his words, the silence was deafening. Can we have it now? Apparently not.
Only the other day, without contradiction and without qualification, he said in the House that the United Kingdom had not signed the European Convention on Human Rights because of Northern Ireland. As a matter of fact, not only had it signed it, but it had ratified it. The hon. Gentleman ought to come clean. Unlike many others of the religious minority in Northern Ireland, he is a good deal less interested in civil rights and good community relations than in using every weapon to hand to end partition.
The hon. Gentleman cannot keep sectarianism out of even a sporting occasion. Last year, there was a parade to celebrate the victory of Glasgow Celtic in the European Cup—[Laughter.] I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is pleased; personally, I was delighted by their success. At the parade in Belfast, for some reason the hon. Gentleman was asked to address those present, and he said:
As I stand on this platform and witness such a vast concourse I am very convinced that the ordinary people of Belfast are prepared to take a stand in defence of all the ideals which have been the way of life for so long. Nineteen sixty-six has proved to be a year of great significance to Falls, Central, Dock and many other areas. We have beaten our opponents in politics, sport and in every other field that they

dared confront us and I have no doubt that this will be the continuing trend in the years to come.
If that piece of naked sectarianism pleases hon. Gentlemen opposite, it did not please members of their own Labour Party executive in Belfast, because one of them, saying that the hon. Gentleman's explanation of his words was wholly unsatisfactory, also said:
No Orwellian twist of words can satisfy. In Belfast, words and phrases have their meanings and the West Belfast M.P. is no novice at using them.
He also said that he was disgusted and fed up with the Republican Party and all that it stood for.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman is carrying round in his pocket interesting anonymous letters. He has not read them out today. But I am prepared to read a letter which is not anonymous. I will read it now, because I think that it shows what used to be his own community is beginning to think about him. It is not untypical of a reaction which is becoming more and more widespread. This letter is written to Belfast Newsletter The hon. Gentleman could have read it for himself. The letter reads:
Sir,
As a Roman Catholic, born and bred in Ulster"—

Mr. Edward Milne: On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many hon. Members are endeavouring to get into the debate. How much has this got to do with the Gracious Speech?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Speaker has given a very wide scope to the debate on the Gracious Speech. I will intervene in the hon. Gentleman's speech when I think it appropriate.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I was about to read the letter:
Sir.
As a Roman Catholic, born and bred in Ulster, I feel I must back up 'Eire Emigrant' about conditions here. I live in a Protestant district and in perfect harmony with all my neighbours.
I can tell Mr. Fitt and Mr. Currie that if trouble starts they won't have the majority of Roman Catholics on their side.
I have a family of 10 and I get £8 18s. family allowance. My husband has a good job and anything that's going we get it.
As far as discrimination is concerned, it just doesn't exist in our part of the country.


I have not checked this lady's declaration that she is a Roman Catholic. I leave that kind of thing to the hon. Member for Belfast, West. But those people—and the hon. Gentleman knows that I am one—who have supported Captain O'Neill's courage throughout in his efforts towards promoting peace and good will are entitled to ask of others among the minority leaders to show the same kind of courage in combatting bigotry on their side. Some have, and I acknowledge this, but others conspicuously have not.
It is no use asking the hon. Member for Belfast, West to show the same kind of consistent courage, because he has a vested interest in a divided community. With him around there can be no wonder that a correspondent writes to the Sunday Times about fanatics—and he did not mean Captain O'Neill—saying, "We have two factions over here, both led by clowns, and most of us are utterly fed up with them both". I need not publicise the name of the other clown. It is only too well known to the hon. Gentleman and to me.
Let us look at the climate in Northern Ireland before Londonderry—changes in the governing body in Northern Ireland and the forces within and without it which have been resisting change have been examined and re-examined time and again by commentators. So much so that equally significant changes in another segment of the community in the minority have gone almost unnoticed. The change, I fear, was not most apparent among political leaders. But it is almost a truism that change is to be seen at its slowest in politics.
But change, for all that, there was. For example, there was the parish priest in my own constituency who, when welcoming Captain O'Neill on a school visit, said:
Your visit is evidence of your genuine desire to establish good relations throughout the country.
I agree that that probably would not have been said 10 years ago. The visit probably would not even have been made. But thank heavens, it has been made and, thank heavens, those words have been said.
The Prime Minister of Northern Ireland has laid a great deal of emphasis on

civic weeks. This contribution to good relations seemed to illustrate the impatience which the minority, at least within the civic setting, were showing with the negative attitudes of yesterday.
The chairman of a Nationalist Council, opening a civic week, spoke of their success and commented:
It is as a community that we are on parade today. It allows us to express our pride in belonging to this town and to this community.
We often hear about religious issues in the town of Newry, nominally a divided town. The Irish News, however, reported an interview with another leading Roman Catholic, who said:
On top of this, Newry's Civic Week has not faced the sectarian difficulties which may arise in other towns. The workers of the town are of all creeds and they work together.
These movements towards a more positive approach do not please everybody. They are not shared by all with equal enthusiasm. We are constantly told, for example, that Roman Catholics should be asked to play a fuller part in the life of the community. Yet the efforts of those actually invited to do so are not always appreciated by their fellows. Thus, a Roman Catholic businessman of great ability, and well known to me, was severely criticised by some of his coreligionists for accepting an invitation to serve on the new city development commission. There was a great deal of condemnation, loud and clear in some quarters, of another member of the Roman Catholic faith who, after serving as a chairman of the local authority and on the Tourist Board, accepted an M.B.E. That is the kind of thing that also takes place.
Events over the last few years have undoubtedly shown a growing divide in the religious minority in Northern Ireland. There are those who genuinely desire to make a positive contribution to local politics and affairs and those who wish to exploit the existing differences of view, with the overriding political purpose of a united Ireland. The latter seem to prefer grievance to redress.

Mr. Michael McGuire: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he has up to now mentioned only my fellow coreligionist Catholics and their instransigence? Will he put the matter right by


developing his own mind and coupling that with the bitter condemnation of threatened expulsion from the Unionists, who are not Catholics who happen merely to give voice to the fact that there should be a change and, in some cases, have attended Catholic services? Would he not include the statement of the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church who, when he had been subjected to the most vile abuse, said, "Thank God I brought my birth certificate with me."

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am in almost complete agreement on that. He knows that I have denounced some people publicly and got into a great deal of trouble for it. I denounce anyone who takes that extreme intransigent view.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West falls into the latter category that I have mentioned. Time and again he has shown himself both militant and dangerous in what he has said. He has made speeches which can only be regarded as an incitement to violence. Camden Town Hall, Strabane and Dungannon are on his battle roll.
I will deal with what happened at Dungannon on 24th August. The hon. Gentleman was not allowed into the market square—[Interruption.] He said from the platform that if it were not for the presence of women and children he would lead the march into the square. Then this standard bearer of good will went on disarmingly to refer to two senior members of the police force, who hap-pended to be standing by, as a pair of "black bastards"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That was the language of the hon. Gentleman. His speech that day, with all the mildness that I can command, was, to say the least, very provocative indeed. If there was not bloodshed that day, it was not the fault of the hon. Member for Belfast, West.

Mr. Thomas Swain: In his last few remarks, the hon. Gentleman has said that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) was a positive danger. To whom in Ireland is my hon. Friend a positive danger? Will the hon. Gentleman say what he means by being dangerous?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The hon. Member for Belfast, West is a danger to

our economy and to the people on both sides of the controversy.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I ought to point out to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) that the Gracious Speech is under debate, not the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). Mr. Speaker has allowed great scope for the debate. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman a good deal of scope, but I hope that he will now come to the subject under debate.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have more or less finished with the hon. Gentleman. It is his credibility more than anything else that is under discussion.
The hon. Gentleman referred to H.M.S. "Sea Eagle". It is true that a spokesman said that the senior naval officer would be ready to help in the restoration of law and order if required, but he went on to say—and the hon. Gentleman was careful not to mention this—that there was no friction between members of the R.U.C. and the forces serving there—rather the contrary.
Then we come to the Londonderry riots. The hon. Gentleman went there against the wishes of many of those involved in this civil rights organisation because they knew that his presence could only lead to trouble. As a Member of Parliament, the hon. Gentleman attempted to lead a parade into an area of Northern Ireland where, traditionally, supporters of what he believes in do not go, and it is traditional that there are areas—the House may find this amusing, but I think it wise—into which pro-Government supporters do not go because it would be regarded as coat-trailing, and vice versa—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is wrong. It is no use trying to apportion blame in these matters.
It should be remembered that the parade was not banned; it was merely prevented from going through two areas of the city which were traditionally Unionist. The whole of the rest of the city was open to that parade, and yet, on that day, the hon. Gentleman, as an elected Member of Parliament, deliberately defied law and order. He gambled with people's lives. He impaired, I hope not permanently, the delicate plant of harmony which there is between the two


faiths in that city, and he imperilled the industrial future of that city.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman has not set back community relations for years to come. But for what he has done I cannot forgive him. The hon. Gentleman has undone the work which some of us have been trying to do for years. If I had on my conscience what the hon. Gentleman should have on his, I should find it very hard to live with.

Mr. Faulds: What about the police?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Totally committed as we are to the defence of the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, we have made our own stand on this whole business of community relations, and I am not going to be dismayed by this foolish talk that we have had in the last few days about a United Ireland, nor by troublemakers with a vested interest in division.
The House ought to recognise that there is something to be said for the fact that Northern Ireland is not yet polarised into two extremes. There are men of good will on both sides who, while in no way compromising their political convictions, have come to occupy what is known generally as the middle ground. There are those who want to see the old sores healed. They have leaders and there are many who will follow, albeit timidly, who could easily be frightened by intemperate words or action from here.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer once remarked that
despite the many attributes of the English a peculiar talent for solving the problems of Ireland was not among them.
That is true. Attempts to help have often contributed more to the problem rather than to the solution. But if there are those here who feel that Britain has a conscience to clear in these matters, the one way to do it is to help remove the more deep-seated fears, the fear of being without work, and the fear of being without a home. Until those fears are removed there will always be charges and counter-charges of prejudice and discrimination. Men of good will on the spot must do the rest, but the House must recognise that the wounds of Ulster are as deep as they are old, and they cannot be healed overnight.
Foolish talk of a United Ireland and repeated suggestions of intervention can only frighten, and frightened men are dangerous—[Interruption.] Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I write my own speeches. I do not have to get Mr. Geoffrey Bing to help me.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York) rose—

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I have been interrupted from a sitting position. I do not think that I need take it from a standing one as well.
The great hope of a détente between the two communities lies in the dedicated moderate opinion in Northern Ireland, which understands this problem, and which, if left to get on with the job, has both the courage and patience to see it through. I am certain of one thing, and that is that intemperate words from here can only hinder and not help. Direct interference from here would be so mistaken that it would mean that there could be no more moderates in Northern Ireland.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Edward Milne: The House—if not the hon. Gentleman—will not be surprised if I do not follow the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) in his speech.
I feel that we have at least to be grateful for the fact that the debate is able to range over a number of subjects, without the necessity of us being confined too closely, or for too long, to one aspect of the Gracious Speech, and in the light of the discussion which has taken place so far I think we must welcome the fact that it says that the Government
will begin consultations on the appointment of a Commission constitution
and that it will deal with separate parts of the United Kingdom.
The point which I consider needs examining is that the United Kingdom Parliament, having become a single unit over a long period of our history needs to be considered not only on the basis of being broken up into national fragments, but into economic divisions. We may have to consider the economic links between the countries themselves.
It is not often that I have to refer to a speech made by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), but he talked


about reviving the ancient kingdoms of Northumbria, Wessex and Mercia. When one looks at the geography and economy of the United Kingdom, one realises that the Commission may well have to consider that.
There are differences within the countries of the United Kingdom, just as much as there are differences between the countries themselves. For instance, the Highlands of Scotland, the border counties of Scotland, and the industrial west of Scotland, are different entities, and are as different from each other as are the separate countries of the United Kingdom. When one considers North and South Wales, and the adjoining English counties, one gets the feeling that if we merely concentrate our attention on separating England, Scotland and Wales, we shall get no further forward. I hope that I am not treading on the toes of any of my hon. Friends when I say that on an economic basis there is a greater reason for bringing in the old Kingdom of Northumbria, which extended from the Humber to the Forth, than there is for separating Scotland, Wales and England.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: As a matter of geographical accuracy, the Kingdom of Northumbria extended a bit further north than the Forth.

Mr. Milne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that fact to me. I am also grateful that my home town of Aberdeen is beyond the confines of the Kingdom of Northumbria as defined by him.
There can be no argument about the assertion that the South-East of Scotland, the Border counties and Northumberland form an economic unit which could be examined by a Commission of this kind in order to deal with the problems faced by the area. In talking about this matter we are concerned not only with the structure of the country but also with the references in the Gracious Speech to the subject of full employment. Many of my hon. Friends were disappointed with what is said on this subject. On this occasion, unlike former occasions, the Gracious Speech merely talks of developing industry and safeguarding employment. In the areas that many of us represent the question of full employment is the kernel of the Government's faith in dealing with the difficulties that confront those areas.
This argument is not presented purely on the basis of development districts or the attraction of employment to areas where it is most needed. If the economic problems of development areas are to be solved we must bring about the changes that have been mentioned. The resources of development areas must be fully used if we are to solve the problems. I do not want to dwell on a matter which will be mentioned in the debate to take place tomorrow. I merely say that in any consultations which take place dealing with the future structure of the country the question of government must be dealt with.
Most of us welcome the references made in the Gracious Speech to the reorganisation of the other place, but some of us are a little apprehensive lest those changes are not far-reaching enough to satisfy present demands. The question of a two-chamber Parliament must be fully examined. I hope that consideration will be given to the possibility of a single-chamber Government, bringing in not merely the elected representatives of the various constituencies but, on a second-tier basis, outside representatives of local authorities and similar bodies.
If we make changes which are inadequate we shall bequeath to those who follow us in this place problems that may not be capable of solution. That is why we express considerable regret that the Gracious Speech contains no reference to the problems of the mining industry. It talks about the need for far-reaching changes and the way in which the problems should be tackled, but it must be remembered that most of our economic and industrial problems spring from a decline in our older industries and our method of dealing with that decline.
Since the present Government have been responsible for dealing with this industry much good has been done. Tremendous efforts have been made to cushion the harsh impact of mining closures in industrial areas. But no one would be content merely with that state of affairs. Well-intentioned though the efforts have been, they have nevertheless been unsuccessful in many cases. Acts of Parliament and other measures have helped to cushion the harsh impact of closures but we have nevertheless been left with a problem that requires tackling at the top level.
It is clear that we must tackle the economic problems not only on the basis of changes in the Constitution, in industry and the economy; we must deal with declining industries and the effect of their decline upon communities which have depended upon them so much in the past. It is clear that contact between the Government and this House and between the Government and the people must be improved. Most hon. Members now realise that back-bench Members and members of the public have lost contact with the Government. I am not ascribing blame to any Government or to any section of the House or country, but the contact and partnership which is essential to the development of our country and to the society that we want is sadly absent at the moment.
I watched in another place the ceremony which preceded the Gracious Speech, with the representatives of the different sections of the State and the Establishment filing in. When I thought of the expense, my mind came back to the statement of the Secretary of State for Education and Science today about cutting back a small sum of £4 million on school meals. We must not only see that we are building a new type of Britain, but have the evidence from the actions of the Government that consideration is being given to those who suffer most from the impact of change. I hope that, through this debate and the ensuing legislation, we will realise that we are not here merely to perpetuate a system which has operated for a long time, but to equip our country for the immediate future and to lay the foundations for those who will follow.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: I do not intend to deal with the matters just dealt with in the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne), but rather to return to the subject of the proposed Constitutional Commission. It would be agreed, I think, that the Press was pretty unanimous in saying that the decision to establish it was due to the growth of the national movements in Scotland and Wales. I am sure that any possible action which the Government may take will also be due to that growth, which springs from a new awareness of

nationhood in those two countries, and which is not, apparently, thought highly of by the Government.
The Prime Minister, for instance, alleged that the leaders of the national movements in Wales and Scotland had played unscrupulously upon national feelings. We have heard that kind of language elsewhere. Brezhnev has been saying the same kind of thing about the leaders of the Czech and Slovak national movements. Nationalism seems to be causing the Communists in the Kremlin more trouble than anything else. An article in The Times today underlines this, saying that it is regarded by the Kremlin as the besetting sin of their parties elsewhere in the world.
But no one seems to be convinced that, although the Government have planned to establish this Commission, they will take any action as a result of any report. It is thought to be a gimmick, to "take the steam" out of Welsh and Scottish nationalism and to kindle the hope that, possibly, a Labour Government, some time in the distant future, may take some action. But the fear that no action may be taken is underlined by the present Government's history in some matters. For instance, no elected council has been established for Wales, although Welsh opinion, even the Labour Party in Wales, is almost unanimous in its favour. The Government have done nothing, although they have the power. We have seen no Welsh Water Board, although this was part of the Labour Party's 1964 election programme. There is not even a Welsh Countryside Commission. If the Government will not take action on comparatively small matters like this, what hope is there that they will act in establishing legislatures in our countries?
If, however, the Government say that they would require a report in 18 months, that would suggest that the Commission is to be something more than a time-wasting gimmick. Of course, it is not impossible for such a report to be produced in that time, especially with modern computer methods. The Sankey Commission, established in 1919, produced an excellent Report in 1920. A Commission on this subject could do equally well.
Some have said that the main purpose of the Commission is to establish facts. Facts are, of course, fundamental, but the kind of facts which this kind of Commission could discover are not immutable, like the laws of the Medes and Persians. They change from year to year. Also, many of the economic facts with which the Commission would be concerned are themselves the result of the present political situation. Although they could be helpful in assessing what might be the situation under self-government in Wales and Scotland, their importance is far from being final.
Fundamentally, the issue is a moral one, and moral factors in this issue are decisive An example is the faith which one has in one's nation, loyalty, cooperation, enthusiasm, the release of energies which would be given by measures of national freedom, a new sense of purpose and direction, a new determination to make a good job of governing one's country. How would one assess factors like this, which are decisive in such a matter?
The Establishment at present seems to be determined that we are to have no measure of national freedom in our countries and rationalises this by saying, as the Prime Minister did on Wednesday, that the "extremist demands" of some people are highly prejudicial to the future of Scotland and Wales. The Labour Party and the Conservative Party are apparently at one in this. One is reminded of a quip of Shaw's:
Scratch an English Socialist and you will find an Imperialist.
If anything, Labour in this matter is rather more conservative than the Conservatives.
In any case, the nature of the Commission's Report will depend far less upon the facts which it collects and collates than upon the prejudices and premises of its members. Governments normally find people to serve on these Commissions who share their prejudices and premises. If there are to be Welshmen on this Commission, I could almost name the likely nominees now—and they could be relied on to co-operate cordially with the Government. I can, therefore, assume that the Commission will produce a report which will be wholly acceptable to the Establishment.
But it could perform a very useful service by considering countries outside the United Kingdom. I want to press this very hard upon the Government. I am thinking especially of countries in Northern Europe, like the four countries of Scandinavia, which could be compared and contrasted with countries like the Baltic States, an exercise which is most instructive. Look at countries like Switzerland, Luxembourg and Iceland, and also Yugoslavia, which was described in an article in yesterday's Sunday Times as a country which had emerged from a backward society and become almost an affluent society, with a thriving industry. It is now a thriving industrial nation—[An HON. MEMBER: "But it is Communist."] It is sometimes described as Communist, but I cannot for the life of me see what Communism there is in the system in Yugoslavia, which is totally decentralised and quite unlike the highly centralised system of Russia. What we have seen in the development of Yugoslavia would not have happened but for its being a small country, and indeed contrasts with the failure to develop Russia.
One sees the same kind of development in the Scandinavian countries. I was in Denmark a short time ago, a country of which its official year book says that it may be classified as a land extremely poor in raw materials. Let the Commission examine the history of Denmark since 1864 when the richer two-fifths of the country was taken by Prussia after a war. Let the Commission see how Denmark has developed.
In 1914 the population was very much the same as the population of Wales but since then it has roughtly doubled, whereas the population of Wales has remained almost the same. Denmark was an agricultural country, and yet today only 7 per cent. of its people work in agriculture, for the country is almost wholly industrialised. Let the Commission examine such facts as that and see how it was done.
When I was there I saw some of the great roads which had been built to develop industry. Today Jutland has more than 40 per cent. of the industry of Denmark. I travelled on railways which were wholly electrified. In Wales we have not a mile of electrified railway system.
Let the Commission examine such countries as Denmark and see how they have developed their economies. The per capita national product of Denmark is higher than that of the United Kingdom. How has that been done? Certainly without sacrificing their language or their culture. Their language flourishes. Their cultural life is of a very high standard. They have a magnificent opera house. They have a wonderful national theatre, national orchestras and national ballet companies. We have none of these things in Wales. How have they been able to do it when the country was so much poorer in national resources than is our country?

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ifor Davies): The hon. Member said that we have no national orchestra in Wales. In fact, we have a national youth orchestra.

Mr. Evans: That is correct. We have a national youth orchestra and a national opera company, with one of the best choruses in the world, but we have no national opera house or adult national orchestra.

Mr. Arthur Probert: I spent eight months in Denmark living among the Danish people, and what impressed me above all was their understanding of language. In their schools they teach four languages, with English as the first language. The Danish people are wholly international in their outlook and wholly opposed to any form of nationalism.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Member is quite right in that one is always impressed to find that Danes, even in the most humble circumstances, can speak more than one language. I wish that were the situation in Wales. It is the kind of situation which I want to achieve there. But the Danes are first and foremost nationalists. It is because they are good nationalists that they are also good internationalists. That is the basis on which that belief is founded.
I wonder whether the position in Denmark would be as good as it is today if in 1864 Denmark had been wholly incorporated into Germany. Would there have been the economic development which in fact we have seen? Should we not have seen people leaving Denmark by hundreds and thousands to go to Germany to find

work? Today there would be a nationalist movement calling for self-government of Denmark, and people in Germany would be telling them what we have been told by the Prime Minister—that they were playing unscrupulously on national emotions in order to get a government of their own and that their aims were extreme and highly prejudicial to the future of Denmark. They would be asked, how could so poor a community support herself? They would be told that they needed German money to support their social services and German industry to give their people work. That is precisely what we are told in Wales. But, in fact, the Danish people have shown what can be done in a country with far fewer natural resources than we have in Wales. We have produced more wealth in coal alone than has the whole of the national Danish economy—and what have we to show for it?
I hope that the Commission will go very thoroughly into these matters and I hope that it will look at the relations between the Nordic countries and at how the Nordic Council works. The Commission will see how their national, political and economic life is based upon the fact of their nationhood.
The Government once had a vision of a Commonwealth based on nationhood, based on the fact of nationality. The Statute of Westminster, 1931, recognised that, and there existed a community of free and equal nations, in no way subordinate one to the other in any aspect of their internal or external affairs but freely associating as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. That is a great and noble concept and we should apply it to our situation in these islands. Because of our geographical proximity, we could co-operate much more closely in partnership than the members of the old British Commonwealth were able to do.
But co-operation and partnership are possible only between equals in status. The Nationalists of Wales and Scotland are the only people who want to establish a true partnership between the nations of Britain. Today Wales is incorporated in England by the Statute of 1536. The need is to transform that incorporation into co-operation. I do not think that a federal system will ensure that that is done—and that is where I differ from my


Liberal friends. A federal system would not ensure equality of status. It would not ensure full nationhood for the smaller nations of these islands. It would not ensure the kind of co-operation and partnership which we need. In any case, it would mean scrapping our present unwritten constitution in Britain and replacing it by a federal system with a written and rigid constitution interpreted by a Supreme Court. That would cause a great upheaval in England and would be of doubtful benefit to England—and, indeed, of doubtful benefit to Wales and Scotland.
In any event, it is quite unnecessary because we could better achieve the same ends by the kind of solution which I have been advocating—a policy of full national freedom for the countries of Wales and Scotland, with a common market between them, which would leave the constitution of England intact and would avoid the economic separation which some people have raised as a bogy. In this situation there would be complete freedom of movement between the countries of these islands, between Wales and England—complete freedom of movement for goods, for people and for capital. There would be no tariffs, no tolls, no passports. That is the kind of freedom which is developing in the Six on the Continent and it is the kind of situation which could be called a Britannic Confederation of Free and Equal Nations.
That is the solution at which we should aim. It will be decided ultimately not here, and certainly not by the Commission, but by the people of Wales and Scotland, in Wales and Scotland. Ultimately they have the decision in their hands, and I am sure that they will use their power to make that decision.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I am sure that the House listened with interest to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) who has described how the small countries in Northern Europe spendidly manage their affairs. He failed to tell us how, with the economic facts of Wales, he could do anything like that in Wales.
Let him consider the example which he gave of the electrification of railways. I wonder whether he has investigated

the cost of the electrification of the railways in Wales and whether the railways in Wales can be an economic system with or without electrification. He will find that even this great country—the United Kingdom—finds it very difficult to provide enough money to electrify some of the main lines, quite apart from lines in rural areas.
It would certainly not be possible to make the railways an economic proposition throughout the whole of Scotland. After the First World War it was decided to reorganise the railways and to make the Scottish railways a Scottish railways system. There were Scottish nationalists in those days, too. The hon. Member will be interested to know that there were immediate protests from railwaymen, from industrialists and from local authorities about the proposals. The railwaymen realised that if that Scottish railways system were established, they would have to accept wages that were so low, in order that the system could run, that many of them would starve. The Minister who was introducing that Bill in Scotland was compelled by the people of Scotland to change the Bill and to organise the railways from North to South as the only way in which they could be economic. The hon. Gentleman would have been more convincing if he had looked into some of the facts—these are only a few of them—that apply to Wales.
When I was a member of the Government, and even during the war when I was on the Select Committee for National Expenditure, one of the Government's concerns was to face up to the problem of Wales and what was to happen when the mines ceased to provide work and wages for the men of South Wales. Industrial estates were provided there. They have been a great blessing to South Wales. When we talked to the miners and tried to persuade them to return to the mines, they told us that the conditions which had been established by the national factories had so changed the whole attitude of miners to industry that they were not prepared to return to the slavery that had existed in the South Wales mines before the war. They preferred to work in the clean air and to be treated as human beings in modern factories rather than as slaves in the Rhondda pits.
The hon. Gentleman who talked about Wales living on its own, should face the facts. Both Wales and Scotland have benefited tremendously, as has England, from this partnership, which has been the greatest common market and which has existed for 250 years without a break. The world today is not moving towards little Englanders, little Welshmen, or little Scotlanders. It is looking to a great economic unity of the world. Anybody who does not recognise this has his head buried in the sand. If Wales wants to go back to live on its own farms and live on the cloth manufactured in Wales and on the produce of Wales, it will be a land of poverty like Southern Ireland, which has its own Government and its own economy. Southern Ireland can survive only by this country buying foodstuffs from Southern Ireland.
I have mentioned Wales because the emotion that is moving in Wales is much the same as that which is moving in Scotland. I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman's history of Scotland is a little out of date. His suggestion that this emotion in Scotland has newly arisen and that Scotland has just discovered this feeling of nationalism is contrary to the whole history of this movement. Indeed, from the day the Act of Union was signed in 1707 there has been a movement for Scottish nationalism. It has continued ever since. In 1707 many Scots greatly resented the Union. They called it a sell-out. The Union came about largely because Scotland was denied access to the colonial markets of England, and when the Darien scheme collapsed Scotland was throttled by being shut out of the great markets of the world. From the moment Scotland joined up with England it started to develop a prosperity it had never known in the past.
If the hon. Gentleman cares to study the history of Scotland before that, he will find that it was a dreadful story. There were conditions which equalled what we hear about present conditions in Biafra. Starvation and famine in Scotland spread throughout the land. People had to sell themselves as slaves to get food, because of the poverty of the land and the difficulty of living. This romanticism and talk about going back to the paradise which existed before the Union

is complete economic and historical nonsense. I cannot speak for Wales, but I should be very surprised to learn that the situation there was not much the same. Scotland has developed ever since.
There are two things in conflict here. It is difficult to reconcile them. There is the emotion of a race which wants to keep its identity and not be absorbed by the bigger partner. Scotland has maintained its identity. It is the miracle of this common market that after 250 years the Scots are still Scots, the Welsh are still Welsh, the Irish are still Irish, and the English—

Mr. Kevin McNamara: —are a combination of all four.

Mr. Woodburn: They are not sure what they are, because the English have no sense of nationality. They do not bother about it. They are so big and powerful that they do not bother. The Scots have refused to be absorbed. They are prepared to be partners but not porters. Therefore, they insist that they stand on their own feet. I am proud that Scotland, a small country, has made a great contribution to the civilisation, not only of England, but of the world. It is said that there are 20 million Scots abroad. We do not want to cut ourselves off and shut ourselves up in a part of Great Britain and call ourselves little Scotlanders.
The hon. Gentleman said that he wants a free movement of people over this island. There could not be a freer movement than there is now. He may be interested to know that the Scottish Nationalists do not want that. They intend to establish a string of immigration posts between Carlisle and Berwick to keep the English out and the Scots in—a sort of Berlin wall. They intend to spend £100 million a year on establishing an army of Scotland—not on electrifying the railways but on having people like the Argylls, I suppose, marching up and down in kilts.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in that allusion. It would not be the Argylls, because the Scottish Nationalist Party last year voted by an overwhelming majority to abolish all the Highland regiments.

Mr. Woodburn: I apologise for using that expression, but the Argylls are in everybody's mind and it is, therefore, a colourful example of what presumably a Scottish army would do. What would they be armed with—pikes? Are they to go back to the claymores? Will they be charging the English down at Bannockburn again? This sort of romantic picture is totally out of touch with the facts of the world today. The idea of Scotland wasting its substance on an army costing £100 million a year frightens me, whatever it might do to the people it is supposed to fight. It certainly frightens me from an economic point of view.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: They are spending over £100 million a year in Scotland now.

Mr. Woodburn: Since the last World War, they have prevented any major world war, for the first time in history. I cannot prove, any more than my hon. Friend can, whether this has been due to Polaris or anything else. The fact is that they have made war so terrible that nobody dare start it. Therefore, although nations want to fight, they have not been able to fight because the risk is too great. It may be an expensive way of keeping peace, but I am always prepared to pay for a fire brigade if there are no fires breaking out. I would sooner have the fire brigade than a fire. For me it is a question of insurance. I vote for the insurance.
Today people are not living in the past. The world is moving forward at such a rate that the problem is not to try to go back to the past. It is to keep pace with the movement into the future. The technological development of the world is proceeding quicker than trade unions, employers, local authorities, this Parliament, the European Parliament, or the World Parliament, can keep track of. This is what is causing the unrest in the world. With the modern development of science and technology, it is now questioned whether the old-fashioned university can satisfy the needs of modern students. Obviously there is some kind of revolt and ferment going on, not only in nationalism, but all over the world.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: My right hon. Friend has demolished the romanticism and sentimentalism about Scottish nationalism, but is he satisfied with the present set-up of government in Scotland?

Mr. Woodburn: If my hon. Friend waits, I will come to that. I have demolished sentiment. I am as emotional a Scottish Nationalist as anybody is. However, emotion must be mixed with common sense. It is the same in marriage. I remember seeing a musical comedy in which the girl said, "And we will love; and we will love; and we will love, all the time". The boy asked, "Will there be any interval for meals?" Someone has to bring us back to earth. One must have common sense mixed up with romance.
Economic development is going on throughout the world and the world has to harness this for the benefit of the human race. It cannot do so in isolated pockets, such as Scotland, Wales or even England. Even our nation of 50 million people is too small a basis for the development of modern technology. This is the reason for the drive towards a Europe of 300 million, such as Russia and America have. This basis will enable us to function, and provide a higher standard of living for the greatest number of people. If we return to small units we return to lower standards of living.
If Wales wants, like Southern Ireland, to have its own government, with a far lower standard of living, it is quite entitled to do so. So is Scotland, but I do not want it, and I advise the Scottish people to go into the facts of the situation before taking any step that will plunge them into a poverty which will take them back to the 19th century.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: The right hon. Gentleman is putting forward a most interesting argument. I wonder whether he is of the opinion that Great Britain should become part of the United States, and therefore part of a far bigger economic entity?

Mr. Woodburn: It is certain that economically Great Britain must become part of a greater unit. The sensible thing is to go into Europe, but if Europe continues to repudiate us and resist this development, it will suffer, as well as ourselves. Europe is not big enough without Britain. With Britain, Europe could be big enough. If we cannot get in, it seems that the United States will be a very attractive possibility. Today Scotland could not have its economic prosperity


without industry from the United States, Italy, England and Holland which employs a great deal of the population. The greatest employers in Scotland are companies from other countries.
Scotland has only its skill and hard work to contribute, because it has very poor natural resources. Now even its mines have become very difficult and expensive to work compared with those in some parts of England. Those are our only natural resources, except for fresh air and forestry. One cannot keep a nation of 5 million people on that. We must be part of a bigger Europe because our industry, science and skill and our hard work has to earn us a decent living. We cannot earn it within Scotland; and we have to earn it through the world. Because of the decline in mining and heavy industry, Scotland has made greater and quicker progress into the scientific age than any other country of its size or comparable population.
We now have computers and other scientific-based industry developing, which fortunately suits Scotland because, being far from the market, it benefits through having industries which do not require a great deal of transport. Economically, Great Britain is not big enough. Certanly neither Scotland nor Wales are sufficiently big to participate in world economic development.
The conclusion that I come to is that the world is rapidly becoming an economic unit. There are certain smaller units, such as Europe, the United States, Russia and perhaps Japan. Within these, one has to have an organisation whereby industry can be localised. Fortunately for this country in 1939–40 a Commission reported on the location of industry. The recommendations of that Commission were put into effect by succeeding Governments and now this country is preventing economics from dominating mankind. It says that the economic interests of the people will not decide where industry will go, but that social needs will decide. Because Britain decided that policy she has been able to divert, induce and bribe industry to come to Wales, Scotland and other parts. Because of that the Midlands and the South of England are ceasing to be the great magnet.
The Scottish nationalist movement which carried on from 1707 became lively in about 1885. I think the then Lord Rosebery actually started the first of the great nationalist movements. Then the Duke of Montrose, a friend of my hon. Friends here, started the present nationalist movement before the war. It has carried on since then, and far from the present upsurge being the greatest development of the movement I believe this occurred in 1948 when Dr. McCormick was leading it, when it polled a very large part of the Scottish population. Scotland wants to feel Scottish and to decide on things Scottish. This is a great emotion. Emotions drive and move us, but it ought to be our intelligence which decides where we move. This is where I want a combination of the two. Let us by all means have emotions, but before we start moving, let our intelligence decide where we are going.
For this reason I welcome what the Government have done in introducing this proposal for a Commission to decide, not only on a little by-product of this movement in Scotland and Wales and elsewhere, but to decide how this Parliament and this country is to adjust to this great world movement facing us. It is not only a question of whether Scotland will have a little more home rule. England needs home rule. We have in this Parliament 630 Members sitting here for three hours on some nights to decide whether Hull will have another million gallons of water. Scotland has given an example here. If there is a dispute of that kind affecting Scotland, Parliament appoints a Joint Commission of the Lords and the Commons to go to Scotland and hear the case and decide the issue there.
There is no occupying the time of Parliament for three hours night after night. The Chairman of Ways and Means must have a great deal of trouble organising this in the middle of a busy Session. This Parliament ought to deal with things which are British, not with things purely English, Scottish or Welsh. There is the question of administrative efficiency. I hope that this Commission will examine this, and see how this Parliament can devote itself to things which are British to those things which ought to be discussed on the Floor of the mother of Parliaments.
I am rather proud to have played some little part in bringing about the devolution of Scottish business upstairs—in a miniature Parliament. From that has flowed the Welsh Committee and the right of the Welsh to discuss their affairs in the same way as the Scots. Since then we have established the possibility of sending English Bills upstairs for discussion. This ought to be developed as a start, before the Commission reports. I would recommend that we adopt the Scottish Standing Order, to deal also with English business such as waterworks and local developments, by a small Commission of the Lords and the Commons, taking it away from the Floor of the House. There is no reason why that should wait for the Commission. This Commission has a wonderful job to tackle. What a vision to try to remake the Government of this country to fit modern times.
We should consider how to fit into Europe and into devolving local affairs to local Parliaments. The hon. Member for Carmarthen may be surprised to know that all this was worked out in 1920 when the Lowther Committee was appointed. He will find its Report in the Library. It is very instructive. He will be surprised to find that Welsh nationalism existed even in those days. This Commission will have the opportunity of surveying the field and getting some of the facts.
Nationalist friends in Scotland and Wales produce all sorts of "facts". Then they complain that the Government cannot give them the facts so they manufacture them or imagine them, and use this as propaganda. If their case were very strong they would not need to manufacture statistics to back it up. Their case is strong on emotional grounds, but they lack poetical grounds. A Scottish Nationalist leaflet showed Scotland as pouring millions of pounds into England every year. This is quite dishonest. I hope that the same propaganda is not made in Wales.
The Government set up a Committee under Lord Catto, himself a Scotsman, which brought out a balance-sheet showing that, on balance, economically Scotland got by far the best of the deal. They got far more, which is right, in what was distributed than by contributions which Scotland can make. I am sure the same would be true of Wales. This is a United Kingdom. The idea that

the industrial wealth in Scotland could provide all the supplies for the North is ludicrous. Orkney and Shetland wants home rule. Her Majesty's Government pay 19s. 6d. out of every £ on all their services to give them what is normal throughout Scotland.
The hon. Member said that there is not a Welsh adult orchestra, but why not? No one prevents the Welsh people building one up in their own country. No one prevents us in Scotland from doing that if we are prepared to stump up the money. Is the complaint that Her Majesty's Government do not give them the money to establish all these Welsh institutions which they themselves are not prepared to pay for? If they are prepared to pay for them they need not raise these problems here but can go ahead and provide such services. So could we in Scotland. We had, however, the greatest difficulty raising our share of the cost of ensuring that the Commonwealth Games will be held in Scotland in 1970. Contributions are, of course, being made in Scotland and the Government, I believe, are paying about three-quarters of the cost.
We have to face reality. We ought to have economic unity in the world and colourful variety locally. We should give local people the opportunity of contributing to the culture of the world in their own colourful way. No one would want the Welsh not to contribute in their own special way to the music, the art and the literature of the world. The same is true of Scotland. We are not a particularly musical race, but we make contributions in education, medicine, engineering, and in other ways. We have contributed some of the great sports of the world—football and golf. We have contributed to international friendship and Robert Burns' song, A man's a man for a' that" is the "Internationale" of friendship, sung all over the world.
Each country makes its contribution in its own way. We must consider how our economic community can fit in with Europe and yet devolve cultural variety to the local areas so that every part of the country, Northumberland, Yorkshire, Scotland, Wales and every ancient kingdom can keep its identity and wave its own flag in the way it wants. This is the proper and sensible way to do it. I hope that the Commission will examine


all these possibilities. There will be a great opportunity for the Commission. Those who sit on it will have one of the most wonderful tasks that has ever fallen to mankind.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. James Dance: I welcome this opportunity to stress the need for much closer attention by the Government to the infrastructure in new towns.
It appears that very little co-operation exists between Ministries over the programming of ancillary services such as hospitals, roads and schools. It also appears that, provided the houses are built, Ministries' responsibility ends. They completely fail to appreciate that these essential services should grow up with and not after the houses have been built.
For example, there is a village quite close to where I live where fairly extensive alterations were made to a school to enable it to cope with the population there. No sooner had the work been completed than a new housing estate was built. Had there been co-operation between the local education authority and the district council, that ridiculous situation would not have occurred. The result is that a hideous temporary portable structure has been built on to the school and in future considerable unnecessary expense will occur. I stress that we want far more co-ordination among the various Ministries, particularly in new towns.
Last Monday, I made an extensive tour of the new town of Redditch. I was amazed to see the progress which had been made, but it brought home to me even more dramatically than before how urgent is the hospital situation in that town. I do not believe either the regional hospital board or the Ministry is fully aware that they are not dealing with a population problem which will be with us in 10 years' time, but that the problem is with us now. People are coming into Redditch very rapidly. By the end of this month there will be an increase in population in the new town of 429. By the end of next year the increase will be 3,571 and the population will rise rapidly after that.
This takes into consideration only houses built by the development corpora-

tion for letting; it does not take into consideration any other form of building, private or council. We understand that we should be very lucky if we get the hospital in 10 years. This situation has been with us for some time. Already, Redditch is short of hospital accommodation. It has only 32 hospital beds and no maternity facilities. All this proves what a desperate situation we have now. What the situation will be in a few years' time hardly bears contemplation.
I look forward to the day when there will not be a new town of Redditch or an old town of Redditch, but the town of Redditch. To bring this about there must be easy road access. As Redditch is at present planned, nearly all the new development is to the east of the town and the old town is to the west. It is almost impossible to get from the east to the west without going to one of the extremities of the town. This should be remedied.
Roads are planned, but there is delay. They should be built now, not after the population has arrived. Further, we cannot be satisfied merely by building roads in the town itself. We have to think of the approach roads. There is a scheme known as the Alvechurch by-pass, a very busy road going into Birmingham, which must be given priority. It is even busier now than in the past because of the large transporters coming from, for example, Cowley to the Longbridge works. There is complete and utter chaos at peak periods and, as the population increases, the snarling-up of traffic will become worse.
The Government give the excuse for not taking action in this matter that they are short of money. Frankly, I do not believe that. The trouble is that they get their priorities wrong. They find money for useless projects like the Land Commission and the Ombudsman, who has no powers to deal with many of the problems that face him.
Although the sums I have just mentioned are not vast, they must be found if the standard of life of our people is to be maintained. Nor am I asking for a large sum to provide the one hospital about which I spoke. The Government could cut their expediture and make money available for these essential purposes. These facilities are needed not merely for people's comfort but for their health.
The need for this hospital in Redditch is so serious that 28,000 local people have signed a petition and have asked me to present it to the Minister—a large number of people when one considers the population of this town. They have not signed this document for fun. They are extremely worried about the future of the National Health Service in Redditch.
The Prime Minister often claims to be the head of a dynamic Government. Any Government are judged on their success in running the country's housekeeping. So far, they have completely failed in this task. If they cannot do the job better, they should get out and make way for a Government who can run the country's housekeeping on a proper economic basis and provide the facilities the public demand.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: I do not intend to spend much time commenting on the remarks of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance). I welcome his conversion to a belief in the principle of economic planning, which for so many years his party ignored. I also welcome his remarks about our wonderful National Health Service, which he wants to improve but which to his party was a complete anathema.

Mr. Dance: Mr. Dance rose—

Mr. Molloy: I trust that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to get into my stride before intervening.

Mr. Dance: The hon. Gentleman is being unfair.

Mr. Molloy: I regret that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) is not in his place. I want him to know that I am getting rather tired of his whining. I fear that people outside may misinterpret his remarks as representing the average standard of rebellion of the Welsh people. If we are to have a Welsh Nationalist in the House, I regret that we cannot have a full-blooded one. I am getting a little tired of the hon. Gentleman's creepy-crawly approach.
Some advice which I wish to give to the hon. Gentleman might be appropriate for the Leader of the Liberal Party, too, for he accidentally put his finger on an

important aspect of nationalism when he admitted to being three parts Celtic. He does not quite have the distinction I have—of being a Welshman with an Irish name representing an English constituency.
This question of nationalism is disturbing people throughout the country. Few Welsh, Scots and English families can claim to be 100 per cent. nationalistic from the family point of view. For example, few of them do not have a Scots daughter-in-law, a Welsh son-in-law or an English sister-in-law. Even some Welsh nationalists have sisters, brothers or children married to Scotsmen and Englishwomen. They are realising that their grandchildren might be half English. It is not as though the nationalists are struggling to get into the 18th century. They are trying to catch up with Adam, and it is time they dropped the whole ridiculous business.
London is a good example of a city—perhaps it is the best example anywhere in the world—in which people of all denominations and types can live together in reasonable harmony. This being so, I am led to raise an important matter concerning the quality of life for the average Londoner. I refer to London Transport, an issue which is mentioned in the Gracious Speech, and I am pleased to note that the Government accept that the integration of London's various means of transport requires additional massive study.
I am, however, somewhat worried about the direction in which the Government may be moving in trying to solve this problem. When discussing the problem of London Transport one is really talking of a matter which has a direct bearing on the quality of life of every Londoner. Living standards depend on transport and it would be a tragedy if the standard of living in London were to depreciate because of our inability to find an adequate answer to the problem of getting people to and from their work and places of leisure. This problem will get worse unless we make a drastic reappraisal of the situation now. While I acknowledge that the Government have made efforts to reappraise the problem, I hope that urgent steps will be taken to go further, in collaboration with London Transport.
Like many people, I have been critical of London Transport. I recognise, however, that our criticisms have sometimes been unfair in view of the framework within which it must work. The politicians erected that framework and we must, therefore, accept our share of the responsibility for it. One of the cruellest impositions on London Transport was the statement that it must, first, pay its way, and, secondly, provide an efficient service. That ridiculous notion has caused much of the upset. If there is one thing which gives the answer to the law of supply and demand, it is the massive public transport system of London.
The trouble has developed in this way. First, there has been a decline in the labour force. Men driving or conducting buses have often had to take abuse from irate passengers who found their buses a bit late, or coming in convoys. So often, when people have to wait in the rain, they ease their irritation by shedding a lot of it on to the unfortunate conductor or driver. Because of these and other conditions, workers have not been prepared to become London bus drivers, conductors and conductresses, and the labour force has deteriorated.
As the labour force has deteriorated, there have not been so many buses on the road, and this has led to a fall in takings. With a fall in takings, London Transport has had to make cuts in the services as part of its effort to meet the financial requirement. Over the years, things have gone round in a ridiculous circle. The fares have been put up. After the fares have been put up and the standard of the service has been reduced, people have refused to pay, for example, 2s. to go from Fulham Broadway to Westminster, and have used their own cars. More cars have come on the roads of London, and this has made matters worse in its turn.
I want the House to spare a thought for this problem and to evaluate its effects. In 1967, London Transport covered about 287 million miles, conveying 1,980 million passengers. This is such a massive total that one can hardly understand what it means. However, with all those miles covered and passengers carried, the accident rate has been so small that it cannot be measured. It is

the finest record in the world. Credit should be given to the organisers of London's transport, but credit should go also to the men who drive the buses. Many of them have had awards for safe driving. Only recently, I heard of one London bus driver who has been driving buses for 40 years and who has never been involved in any sort of accident. Many of his colleagues have a similar record.
The London transport system covers about 2,000 sq. miles, one-twenty fifth of all England. The total population served is 10¼ million. Six million Londoners daily use some form of public transport. The loss of passengers over the years has been tragic, reinforcing the argument which I am putting, that running the service down makes it lose passengers, with the result that more money is lost and then more cars come on the road. From 1956 to 1966, London Transport lost 125 million passengers. In 1967, it took heart in the fact that the loss of passengers was reduced dramatically to only 5 million.
I put it to the Minister, and to the Greater London Council when it comes to take over London's transport, that the real reason we have not been able to develop a really efficient transport system to meet London's need is that we have spoiled a magnificent service by trying to compel it to pay its way.

Mr. David Webster: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the way profit changed to loss? Up to the end of the 13 years of Conservative government, London Transport ran at a profit. This is now not so. What has been done by the Government to make it fail to run at a profit?

Mr. Molloy: The hon. Gentleman's comment shows the hopelessness of the position into which one is sometimes put by such an attitude. I have explained the reason for the deteriorating situation, the reason why London's roads are clogged with traffic in the rush hours so that the buses cannot get through and people prefer to use their cars. When London Transport found it could not pay its way, it took buses off the roads. That is the reason for the present situation.
A well-known industrialist once made the point to me that, if a bus was late once or twice in a week, if it was held


up in a, traffic jam, and a few hundred skilled operatives were half an hour or an hour late in coming to work, this could mean a loss of about £10,000. It had never struck him that, on the basis of his argument, that private company was being magnificently subsidised by London Transport.
I come now to another aspect of London's transport, the new system of one-man buses operating in a given area. Three or four years ago, I suggested in the House that we might have local area bus services. The Ealing Trades Council had prepared a plan under which, instead of having London buses running all the way from Ealing to Westminster or the East End, or, for example, having the No. 73 bus going all the way from Stoke Newington to Richmond, it would be more sensible to have area bus services meeting a certain number of main service buses at certain terminals or connecting with the underground stations. These local services would cover a given area, for example, Ealing, Northolt and Green-ford or Fulham, Hammersmith and Kensington.
A scheme of this sort is now being accepted, according to the ideas suggested in last year's Report of the London Transport Board, and I welcome it very much. However, I should like it to go further. I am not too keen on the idea of the large single-decker bus with, say, 48 people having to stand. The suggestion which my colleagues in the Ealing Trades Council and I put forward was that within local areas we should have something on the lines of the Volkeswagen bus.
This could be of particular value for the housewife who, after her children have gone to school and her husband has gone to work, has a lot of local things to attend to. There would be a fair number of these small buses, so that if a woman missed one the next would be coming along almost at once. I am convinced that such a service would be much appreciated, and it would probably pay its way. It would certainly make a great contribution to the quality of life of the average working-class woman in the Greater London area.
Whatever is done in the modernisation of London's transport—and, heaven knows, it is needed—and whatever may

be the criticisms levelled at the London Transport Board, all must recognise that a truly remarkable job is done by the Board within the limits which Governments have imposed upon it. Now, the idea is that our transport system shall move away from Parliamentary control and come under the Greater London Council. I should like to see closer contact with people.
One trades council started an idea for providing local public transport in the Borough of Ealing. It was aided by the local newspaper, which did not take political sides but saw the idea as being rather good. If such thinking can be given the recognition that it should receive in other parts of London—we might have to experiment here and there—I believe that this method could lead to a number of things happening. People would not use their cars so often, but would prefer to use public transport, thus reducing the number of cars on the road. As a result, there would be much more peace of mind for the mass of Londoners. If we could move along these lines fairly quickly, I believe that such action would make a great contribution to improving the quality of life of those in this great metropolis.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: I hope that the hon. Member for Ealing (Mr. Molloy) will forgive me if I do not deal with his very interesting speech about London Transport. I want to turn to what I think is the key paragraph in the Gracious Speech, which refers to the pressing forward of
policies for strengthening the economy so as to achieve a continuing and substantial balance of payments surplus.
We have had similar words in Gracious Speeches in previous years—last year, the year before, and the year before that. This morning I read again the Gracious Speech of 1965, when we had much the same statement. It said:
My Government's aim is to develop a soundly based economy. They will give priority to ensuring that balance in external payments is restored next year and that the strength of sterling is maintained.
We know what happened to the balance of payments, and what happened to the strength of sterling afterwards.
We are used to the pious hopes expressed every year in this way in the


Gracious Speech, and to the way in which they quickly fade in the face of events only to be repeated equally piously soon afterwards. The longish-term undertakings collapse year after year, and the short-term undertakings are not much better. In his Budget speech this year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer forecast a fall in consumer demand, but consumer demand has increased, primarily because the Government's policy has encouraged a flight from money. As a result, we had emergency measures, the restrictions on hire purchase, announced just a few days ago.
Perhaps the shortest-term forecast of all was the one we heard from the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity at Bassetlaw on Wednesday night, repeated, at least by implication, by the Leader of the House on Thursday, the day of the voting, only to be totally contradicted by the statement on Friday. The right hon. Lady says that this was simply a touch on the tiller, but the Government get their nautical metaphors pretty muddled.
The then Chancellor of the Exchequer cried, "Steady as she goes", or words to that effect, last year. Since then the ship of State has been biffed and buffeted by devaluation, the emergency measures of January, the Budget and the latest restrictions on consumer demand, which will provoke the unemployment that the Government promised we should not have. It has been shaken off course pretty drastically.
The other day the Prime Minister used the current catch-phrase "participation in decision-making". I am not sure that people want to participate very much in the decisions of the present Government. They do not want to participate in the contradictions and double-talk that we have heard over the past years, or the broken promises, the greatest of which was the promise that there would be no increase in taxation. That was their promise. Their actions led to an increase in tax rates of £2,100 million, an increase in our overseas debts of nearly £3,000 million and an increase in the bureaucracy of nearly 60,000. That is the record over four years. Translated into daily terms, the average daily increase in tax rates over the past four

years has been £1½ million, the daily increase in overseas debts has been £2 million and the daily increase in the bureaucracy has been 40 people.
The strength of the United Kingdom economy is critical to the future prosperity of Scotland. That is something which those who advocate separatism and nationalism might well remember. What matters to us all in Scotland, England and Wales is not the strength of one part of our country, but the strength of the total economy. After talking of strengthening the economy, the Gracious Speech speaks of the development of policies to
encourage a better distribution of resources in industry and employment and to make fuller use of resources in the Regions.
I hope that that declaration will carry more conviction than previous declarations.
I am glad that the Secretary of State for Scotland is with us. At Question Time the other day he showed an alarming complacency in his replies to Questions about the progress of employment in Scotland. His White Paper, the so-called Scottish Plan, which was published in January, 1966, contemplated an increase in new jobs of between 50,000 and 60,000 by 1970. We are just about half way through that period now, and far from new jobs having been created, there has been a substantial loss in the number of jobs in Scotland.
Whilst it is difficult to relate one year to another because of changing bases of calculation, if the right hon. Gentleman looks at the Written Answer to a Question I asked on 21st October, 1968, he will see that, even making allowances for the changing base, the number of people employed in Scotland fell between June, 1965, and June, 1967, by 28,800. The drop in manufacturing industries was 27,000 and the drop in the service industries was 8,200. There is nothing in that to suggest that the hopes expressed by the Chancellor in 1966 when he introduced the Selective Employment Tax have been fulfilled. There is nothing there to show the movement from service employment to manufacturing employment which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to the House and country at that time.
By contrast, it is interesting to note that in the period 1960 to 1964 the number of


new jobs created in Scotland was just over 30,000. We succeeded in those years where the right hon. Gentleman has failed. The right hon. Gentleman looks doubtful, but the figure is in paragraph 26 on page 9 of his own White Paper. The increase in employment between 1960 and 1964 was just over 30,000. In the White Paper, the right hon. Gentleman forecasts an increase of 60,000 between 1965 and 1970. What happened was the increase of 30,000 in those earlier years. What has not happened is any increase since. We have gone into reverse, with a net loss of 28,800 jobs.
It is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to say at Question Time that it will take a little longer than the Government planned, and that we must not worry because it will come right in the end. We all want it to come right, but we want him to tell us how. What steps are being taken? The right hon. Gentleman may refer to advance factories. They are all very well when they are used, but will he tell the House how many are standing empty today without tenants, and how many new jobs have been provided by the Government's new factory building programme?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): We have within this year allocated 15 advance factories, which is equal in the year so far to the past two years put together.

Mr. MacArthur: That is not the answer to my question. How many advance factories are now standing empty, without tenants? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that? He will not, because he knows very well that there is a substantial number. He and I share the wish that they will be filled soon, but that is not the background against which he should make complacent statements such as that we heard in the House the other day.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is talking about empty advance factories. I am interested in this. There is one in my constituency. If private enterprise fails to take over an empty advance factory, is the hon. Gentleman in favour of the State taking action to provide employment in the area?

Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Gentleman can put as many tricky and clever ques-

tions as he likes, but when we had free enterprise working more freely we increased the number of jobs in Scotland over four years by 30,000. He may be delighted with the effects of nationalisation and State control, but the result in Scotland over recent years has been a drop of 28,800 jobs.
Later in the Gracious Speech we come to a significant paragraph which states that the law relating to education in Scotland will be brought into line with current developments. I hope that the Secretary of State will soon tell us what that mysterious statement means. Will it be a consolidation Measure or will it be something more than that?
Is there in this paragraph a threat to fee-paying schools? I hope not. If there is, the right hon. Gentleman will have a fight on his hands, not only because we believe in the retention of these great schools in Scotland but also because my hon. Friends and I believe that movements of this kind at this time will divert the attention and expert knowledge of educationists in education and in local authorities alike from the critical task of preparing to meet the raising of the school leaving age in 1972.
People ought to be concerned not with petty political squabbles emanating from Transport House, but with the real education issue, which is what we are to teach our children who stay on for the extra year after 1972. What will the curriculum be? How shall we fit our young citizens for the challenge of life outside? How shall we reduce the shortage of teachers? How shall we fulfil the needs of the school building programme?
I ask the Secretary of State to provide us by the end of this year with a clear statement setting out the programme for each of these aspects of educational development so that we shall be ready to raise the school leaving age in 1972 and not again be faced with a collapse such as was forced upon us by the economic measures earlier their year and by the un-preparedness of education thanks to the short-sightedness of Government policies.
I warmly welcome the reference in the Gracious Speech to the introduction of legislation to help the development of tourism in Great Britain. I look forward to more information about this. I hope that it will have more promise in it than


the empty, so-called help given by the Government to tourism in the past.
I referred earlier to the right hon. Gentleman's notorious White Paper. I mention it again because it spoke of special treatment for tourism. Special treatment was just what tourism got. Within a few months the investment allowances were withdrawn. In May of that year, with the General Election safely behind them, the Government slapped on the Selective Employment Tax. Last year, repenting slightly and too late, they adjusted the impact of the tax, and now they claim great credit for removing the worst effects of it from the hotel industry in Scotland.
But the fact is that hotels in Scotland will now be paying £150,000 more a year in S.E.T. than before the so-called concession. I do not regard that as help to the industry. I trust that the help that will come under the new legislation will mean rather more than the sham help that we have had.
There is the usual rather platudinous comment that the Government will continue to promote the development of agriculture as an important contribution to the national economy. I always welcome words of this kind in the Gracious Speech, but what do they mean? If the right hon. Gentleman was serious about agriculture in Scotland he would do more about it, and doing more about it without doubt requires a gradual movement over a period of years from deficiency payments to a system of import levies and import control.
Much of the debate today has centred on the appointment of a Commission. But the Gracious Speech does not refer to the appointment of a Commission. It refers to the beginning of consultations about the appointment of a Commission. I hope that before the end of the debate on the Gracious Speech we shall hear more than we have done about what these words mean.
There has been an increase in the nationalist movement in Scotland as in Wales. I believe that it is over its peak now, but that is by the way. What I think people do not realise is that in Scotland there has been a great deal of devolution already. As the Prime Minister said on Wednesday, the Secretary of State already has control of health and

agriculture. More than that, he has control of town and country planning; housing; new towns; roads; urban redevelopment; water and sewerage; clean air; electricity; local government; countryside; tourism; Highland development, including shipping; forestry; Crown Estates; education; child care; approved schools; recreation; arts; hospitals; welfare, including welfare of the aged and disabled; fisheries, food supply; crofting; public order; police; fire; civil defence; legal questions, including law reform and legal aid; criminal justice; prisons; liquor licensing. This is quite a list.

Mr. Ross: It includes tourism.

Mr. MacArthur: Yes. It represents the large amount of devolution that has taken place over the years. It shows the need for a different sort of inquiry, because there is precious little room left for devolution of this kind. There is little left to devolve.
If there is to be a further movement of decision-making into Scotland, as I believe there must be, I find it hard to understand how it can be within the present framework of government. That is why I believe it is time to review the machinery of government in Scotland to see how a process can be established whereby some part at least of the legislation for Scotland, which we deal with very largely separately, can be shared by a new body in Scotland.
The Prime Minister has at last caught up with this. I remind the Secretary of State for Scotland that already there is sitting in Scotland as distinguished a Constitutional Committee as could possibly be appointed. That is the one appointed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister could well have accepted his invitation to appoint an all-party Commission of Inquiry because I believe that ideally a study of this kind should be an all-party matter as it opens the prospect of constitutional change which could be the largest in the Kingdom for over two centuries.
I trust that the outcome of the Commission will not be any proposal for the separation of Scotland from England. That would be disastrous for Scotland and very damaging for England. I believe that what we must encourage is the


unity of the United Kingdom and that the best way to build the strength of each part of our United Kingdom is to take every step we can to provide for the strengthening of our total economy.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I should like to continue the discussion of the last point raised by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) on the question of the Constitutional Commission. Unlike most hon. Members who have spoken, I am a little unhappy about its appointment. I was particularly unhappy about the arguments of the Leader of the Liberal Party, when he seemed to think that the whole future development of our constitution, its internal relationships and the rôle of this House should be handed over to a body of appointed people for their mature deliberation. It seems to me that to do this would be to suggest that neither the Ministers, the Shadow Cabinet, nor the collective wisdom of this House is equal to the task, and that would be the greatest condemnation of Parliament and of its present position that anyone could make.
I was aghast at the thought of sitting here for three or four years waiting for a group of people to produce some proposals which we would then have to accept or reject. After all, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) pointed out, such a body would be composed of people who would be in no way less political than we are. They would simply have different views or prejudices. It is a fundamental matter for the Government to decide and propose and then for Parliament to debate and accept or reject.
I cannot see why the Government have produced this unfortunte proposal of a Constitutional Commission. One possible argument put forward by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary at the Labour Party conference at Blackpool was that the facts are not fully known and need to be investigated. With respect, I doubt that.
On financial questions, the facts are as well known as it is possible for accountants to extract them. In 1952, we had the detailed Report of the Catto Committee, set up by righ hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. That went into the matter and produced a return. Those

items which it could not allocate are unallocatable. I have asked the Treasury to produce an up-to-date return, but more detail cannot be produced, given the present financial structure of the country.
Even if one could produce the facts, they would not have much effect on the people arguing the case. After all, it is not a "hard cash" case. We know that Britain could exist as separate parts, which might be better or worse off. But, basically, that does not affect the argument.
On administrative facts, also, the matters are well known. The House is obliged to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, who read the list of functions of the Secretary of State. They are well known to most people, certainly to most students of the subject, and we do not need to research them to establish the position. I cannot accept that we need a Commission to establish the facts.
The value judgments cannot be established by a Commission. They are not open to judgment. I was interested in the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Carmarthen that, if Wales was a separate nation, there would be an upsurge of cultural activity, vitality, enthusiasm and confidence. I hope that that would be so, but no one can establish it. We can look at countries where it exists and at countries which have achieved independence where, if anything, art, literature and letters have declined. They have become inward-looking, narrow and parochial.
If we in Scotland became independent, standards would decline. Most of the art, literature and letters which have stimulated a Scottish response have come from outside. There is a great deal of narrowness in my country, and I am not confident that a separate Scottish Assembly would be more liberal or progressive in cultural matters and encourage and stimulate people more than is the case at present. It might, but that is no reason for appointing a Commission to pronounce on the matter.
I can only assume that the reason the Government have chosen to set up the Commission is because of a fundamental difficulty in their ranks in deciding on the matter. Indeed, there is not only a


disagreement amongst the Government about what should happen. It exists among right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite as well. The Leader of the Opposition has pronounced in favour of an elected assembly and has set up a Committee to investigate it. I shall not be surprised if the Committee turns down his proposal. I know that there are tremendous tensions among hon. Gentlemen opposite who represent Scottish constituencies. The same is true of these benches, and I respect people's views on these matters. But, ultimately, it is a matter for the Government to determine, to reach a conclusion and to put forward their views.
I would press my right hon. Friends to realise the dangers of delay. Politically, they are serious. But, by that, I do not mean in terms of the prospects of either of the major parties defeating nationalist candidates. That is not such a serious matter. I think that the wisdom of the Scottish electorate will accept the general arguments in favour of unity and reject separatism. The evidence is that the vast bulk of people voting nationalist do not accept nationalist policy on this point. Most people reject it, and what we must consider is why they vote in this way.
The chief political danger in delay is that it suggests to the public that the Government, the Opposition and this House have not grappled with one of the central questions of our community. In a sense, we are rudderless on the matter, and this contributes to people's disillusionment with politicians and the machinery of government.
There are administrative dangers in delay in that the way in which we run our country, in its highly centralised form in England, at any rate, has produced a great slowing down in the whole machinery of government. I am much impressed by the rate at which some countries, for example, can put up advance factories when the two in my constituency took long negotiations and, in one case, 13 months and, in the other, 17 months to construct. I was discussing this with a senior civil servant in the Scottish Office who is an old friend and associate of mine. He told me that one of the big problems in negotiating any Scottish economic development is the number and wide variety of bodies which

have to be consulted, all with their own amour propre. The result is that our pace of economic activity in regional terms, despite the tremendous energy of Ministers, has been slowed.
There is also a weakness on the consultation side. Having gone through this long process, we spring plans on people, and there is then a failure of consultation and contact. There is then delay, as we have seen in the Central Borders plan, where, misguidedly, one county council turned it down, the whole matter ground to a halt, and now has to be got going again. The chief danger is that delay will turn the political atmosphere sour.
I will not go into the merits of the interesting and moving clash to which we listened earlier between two hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies. In my view, that deep and bitter clash was the product of the greatest error of our statesmanship in the 19th century. Sensible devolution for Ireland was delayed for 30 years, when it was demanded by Protestants and Catholics alike and when it could have been brought in without separation and maintained the unity of the country.
This is not a matter of separation at all. It is a more complex matter of what is to be decided centrally and what locally. I have had the good fortune recently to be touring Europe, and this problem deeply exercises the Governments of France, Germany and Italy, to take only three examples. General de Gaulle thought that he could decentralise administration to the prefects, by building them up more powerfully, without popular participation. The days of May last year, with their frustration and bitterness, were part of a revolution against the over-centralisation of France. He has had to make concessions. In Italy, there is an autonomous council in Sicily and Sardinia handling matters of development in the context of the national framework. In Germany, they have the division between the Lander and a highly prosperous united country.
The problem of what is to be put out to the regions and what is to be kept central is a subtle, interesting and intricate one which is only soluble on political lines by the Members of the Government bringing forward proposals and putting them to the House so that they can be tackled.
I would urge upon my right hon. Friends that the most fruitful part of the Queen's; speech is that which says that they will not hesitate to go on with this work, despite the setting up of the Commission. I hope that they will let the Commission alone, make up their own minds and give us something to consider before the expiry of this Parliament.

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE (TWO-TIER LETTER SYSTEM)

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Barber: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add:
but humbly regret that while the Queen's Speech proposes legislation to reorganise the Post Office it contains no plans to correct the chaos, muddle and confusion caused by the ill-prepared introduction of the two-tier postal system.
Nobody who has had experience of being in charge of a Government Department can fail to think of the personal position of the Postmaster-General who, over the last few weeks, has suddenly found himself the target of sustained criticism from the general public. In fairness to the right hon. Gentleman, I remind the House what he has already told us—that the planning for the new two-tier system started some three or four years ago, when the Postmaster-General was none other than the present Minister of Technology. That in itself, I should have thought, should have been enough to put the right hon. Gentleman on his guard.
For as long as any of us can remember, in the United Kingdom we have had a two-tier system, and it may well have been right to switch from the old system, in which the two rates were related to content, to a new system in which the two rates are related to service. But what nobody in his right senses can deny is that the way in which the new system has been introduced is a classic example of incompetence and of bungling, that the public were deceived by an advertising campaign which, as I shall show, was deliberately misleading, and that postmen throughout the country are furious that they have been let down by the stupidity of instructions issued by the right hon. Gentleman. I shall return to each of these points.
The right hon. Gentleman has consistently refused to make a statement to the House and to submit himself to cross-examination. As we have read, he has talked freely to the Press and he has issued statements outside the House. But for reasons which I think are now becoming obvious to all of us, he ignored the House of Commons altogether until he was forced to answer the Adjournment


debate introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell), and then the Postmaster-General told us that he was
delighted by the progress that this system has made".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th Oct., 1968, Vol. 770, c. 737.]
That was a remark which was as complacent as it was fatuous, and it indicates the sort of smug and unwarranted satisfaction which is infuriating more and more the long-suffering public who are actually experiencing the muddle and the confusion which has been created.
As far as the general public are concerned, the trouble started with a publicity campaign which was about as inept as anyone could conceive and which was bound to fail for one simple reason—because it was untrue. We now know that the advertising agency which has served the Post Office well for 14 years—which was summarily dismissed by the Postmaster-General—had its own proposals turned down by the right hon. Gentleman. But what I find quite incredible is that the right hon. Gentleman should seek to blame the advertising agency which, as I say, for 14 years had served the Post Office well, and should not accept the responsibility himself.
I say that because it is surely inconceivable that the Postmaster-General did not personally approve this campaign, which was, after all, one of the biggest advertising campaigns undertaken by a Government Department. The full cost of the campaign is not yet clear, but we do know that at least £320,000 has been spent on a public relations campaign, and for part of the expenses of a campaign to introduce the new system, and that the net result of all that expenditure has been to sour the relations between the Post Office and the public.
Why has that happened? Let me read the opening words of one half-page advertisement:
For a 1d. extra your mail gets priority. It goes 'first-class' through all the stages of sorting and transportation, to arrive the day after posting almost anywhere in the United Kingdom".
That is the service for 5d.—for a price increase of 25 per cent. But precisely the same description could have been applied, before this new system, to the old 4d. post. I will read it again. Surely the

right hon. Gentleman will agree that it applied to the old 4d. post because that, too, went
first class through all the stages of sorting and transportation to arrive the day after posting almost anywhere in the United Kingdom.
The other day the right hon. Gentle-boasted that 94 per cent. of the 5d. mail, of the first-class mail, is now delivered the day after posting. But what the right hon. Gentleman does not disclose is that, even under this Administration, of the far greater volume of the old 4d. mail more than 90 per cent. was similarly delivered the day after posting. Indeed, if one looks at the Report of the Post Office for last year—the last year before the new system—one finds that the rate was 92 per cent., compared with 94 per cent. for the much smaller volume of mail now being delivered under the first-class system.
The whole publicity exercise turns out in reality to be a confidence trick, but a fraud on the public which was so naive that it was bound to be found out—and it was found out. Of course, with far fewer letters now going first-class, the proportion delivered on the first day after posting must be very slightly higher. It would be astonishing if it were otherwise. But the idea that the Post Office is providing some magnificent new service for a 25 per cent. increase in price is sheer deception, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to explain a statement in another of his advertisements:
the New Letter Service isn't only two-speed and two-price. It's also two-way. You benefit. We benefit.
I understand that the right hon. Gentleman intends to follow me in the debate. Perhaps he will answer this simple question. Will he tell the House just how those who continue to put 4d. stamps on their letters are to benefit from the new system? We should like to know. Remembering that on his own estimate he is planning for 20 million letters a day—that is, the majority of letters—to go by the 4d. post, we are entitled to an answer to this question: in respect of those 20 million letters every day bearing a 4d. stamp, how are the public to benefit in accordance with what was said in that advertisement? The truth is that


they do not benefit at all. They used to get first-rate service and now they get second-rate service.
The issue can be simply stated in three factual propositions. First, before the change the rates for a letter were 3d. and 4d. and now they are 4d. and 5d. Secondly, the average period between posting and delivery is now longer and the overall postal service is now worse than before the change. Thirdly, the 25 per cent. increase in postal rates at a time when the Government purport to be concerned to keep prices down has nothing whatever to do with the new system. It is a straight rise in the price of a monopoly service, for which the Government are entirely responsible, and it flouts every criterion which is applied to private enterprise.
But if the public have been misled into thinking that they were getting a bargain, what of the preparations for the changeover to the new two-tier system? It is now obvious that the new system was introduced in circumstances which threw some of the sorting offices into chaos and confusion, and it did so because the simplest precautions had not been taken.
In the first place, there are now so many different designs of stamp that accurate sorting as between first-class and second-class mail is extremely difficult. The right hon. Gentleman told us that this change had been planned for three or four years. In those circumstances, even a child would have taken the elementary precaution of not increasing the multiplicity of designs. But that is precisely what the Government have done. Even in the case of standard designs, during these three or four years of preparation nobody apparently thought it necessary to design stamps with really obvious and distinctive contrast in appearance.
So there was, for instance, the ludicrous situation at Walsall where, because the sorters worked under fluorescent lighting, they found it difficult to distinguish between the 4d. stamps and the 5d. stamps. The Head Postmaster at Walsall said:
The fact that both 4d. and 5d. letters are now sealed means that the sorters have to check every letter. It takes about 30 minutes longer than it need to sort first-class mail.

Then there is a comment that 5d. stamps are blue and 4d. stamps are olive-brown sepia, and he suggests an early change of colour. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us why this difficulty about colour was not foreseen.
We are told that the automatic sorting machines, which, astonishingly enough, are apparently at only six offices in the whole country, distinguish between the new 4d. and 5d. stamp because the 5d. stamp has two phosphor bars in it. According to one report, if I put on a letter a 3d. stamp and a 1d. stamp there will be two phosphor bars, so, for 4d. I can get the 5d. service. This is a report which has appeared in a reputable newspaper. Apparently it has not been denied. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether there are circumstances in which, if a combination of stamps adding up to 4d. is put on a letter, the machines will categorise the letter as first-class mail.
What has infuriated the public more than anything else has been the deliberate holding back of letters when it was possible to deliver them. The right hon. Gentleman was asked by an hon. Member of the House whether he would publish the instructions which have been given by him and by his Department to the various post offices. He declined to do so. I think that now I begin to appreciate why, because one newspaper was able to get hold of part of the instructions which were operative in North-East England.
I should like to quote two paragraphs from these instructions which apply to second-class mail. I ask the House to bear in mind that the right hon. Gentleman time and again has told the country that there has been no deliberate holding back of letters when it was possible to deliver them. Yet these are quotations from confidential instructions:
Second-class items for offices of delivery must NOT be dispatched on the day of posting.
The memo goes on:
Second-class items posted on Saturdays and Sundays for offices of delivery must NOT be dispatched, but held over for dispatch on Monday.
Time and again the right hon. Gentleman has told the Press and others outside this House—he has not told us here—that there was no deliberate holding back of mail. But when he realised that


people outside were beginning to appreciate that there was deliberate holding back of mail, he altered the instructions concerning local delivery. I will not dwell on the more ridiculous examples which have been reported in the Press, such as the quaint procedure in one village which, thank goodness, has been stopped, under which, apparently, the postman emptied the pillar box, sorted the mail, and put the 4d. letters back again.
What is now beginning to cause great concern is the general power which the Minister has taken to delay the delivery of second-class mail, a power which, in law, permits the Postmaster-General, and so his subordinates, to delay second-class mail indefinitely. This is the power which is contained in the new regulations. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) hopes to raise later this evening the matter of these new Inland Post Regulations, 1968. I will content myself with saying that just after we rose for the Summer Recess the Postmaster-General laid these new regulations, which came into force during that Recess.
I am not accusing him of deliberately arranging this during the Recess, but one consequence is that most right hon. and hon. Members in this House were not here at the time they were laid or at the time they came into force and, therefore, have only recently appreciated the significance of some of the regulations.
One of these regulations provides:
Any second-class letter…may be withheld from dispatch or delivery until any subsequent dispatch or delivery.
In other words, any one of the 20 million second-class letters posted every day can be held up indefinitely. That is now the law laid down by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, and it has been so since 16th September.
What is the criterion laid down by the right hon. Gentleman for the deliberate withholding of delivery of second-class mail? I will, once again, quote the right hon. Gentleman's own words. Referring to the withholding of delivery of second-class mail, he said:
If it will delay the first-class post then it will be kept at the sorting office and then go out as soon as possible.
This means, of course, that if for a week there is in any post office area an excep-

tional abundance of first-class mail, then, day after day, the second-class mail can be held up. And it will be held up. This is the right hon. Gentleman's intention.
This is a very serious matter indeed, because we are talking of a power to delay which can affect any one of 20 million letters a day. Certainly, many businessmen are extremely concerned about what is happening on what they are now learning from their own first-hand experience. I beg the Postmaster-General to realise that this is no trivial matter.
I will quote one or two examples of the sort of experience which is sapping the confidence of businessmen in the new system. First, the experience of the Engineering Industries Association:
Second-class mail, which is being used extensively by the Association's officers is appallingly bad. Delays of a week are common, and there are many complaints about the non-arrival of mail sent out to members of committees and firms. It seems as if there is a deliberate policy to drive all postal users into the first-class scheme.
In addition, there was the experience of the C.B.I.—I will not quote it in full—part of which was referred to the other day by the right hon. Gentleman. The experience of the C.B.I., which appeared in the Press, was that four letters posted second-class, after more than a fortnight had still not arrived. This is not only intolerable; to my mind it is inexcusable.
I will give one more example from the Opinion Research Centre, a public con-opinion and market research organisation. The director says:
We are only a comparatively small company. But we rely greatly on a fast and efficient postal service; we normally use first-class post. Since the much trumpeted new system began at least 10 important letters addressed either to us, or from us to interviewers, have simply vanished into the postal limberlost.
There is a lot more in the letter, particularly about a package of completed questionnaires which arrived at the offices of this company in a Post Office bag which, when opened, contained only shredded paper. I have seen it. In the bag there was a buff form, with no apology, but there was this baffling information, "Parcel caught in machinery". That is all we know about it.
The right hon. Gentleman will realise now why people are getting so disillusioned about what he has been saying, and why one of the commonest jokes


that one hears when one talks to people about the postal service is, "Post now for Christmas". That is the advice which I should certainly give anybody after studying this matter.
With any organisation as large as the Post Office, employing, I think I am right in saying, more than 400,000 people, and dealing direct with the whole of the adult population, there are bound to be many complaints, and many of these complaints will be justified. No large organisation is foolproof, and this applies in the private sector of industry with a large organisation just as it does with an organisation like the Post Office. But, generally, it is true to say that the postal services in the United Kingdom have hitherto had a good reputation, and it is, therefore, all the more sad that the way in which the new two-tier system has been introduced, and in particular the inept handling of the publicity, should have aroused the criticism of so many people
For the Postmaster-General to say that he is delighted with the progress of the new system evinces either a degree of arrogance of which I hope he is not capable, or it shows that, like so many of his colleagues, he simply has no idea what ordinary people are saying. There is, I think, still time to retrieve the situation. For the sake of the right hon. Gentleman, for the sake of the loyal servants of the Post Office, and, above all, for the sake of the public, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman succeeds.

7.22 p.m.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. John Stonehouse): I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) for the moderate way in which he introduced the Amendment, and particularly for his initial remarks. I am not one of those who object to the Opposition having chosen this subject for debate. I think that it is to the advantage of the whole House that we should have an opportunity of looking at the way the Post Office does its job, because the Post Office is absolutely essential to good communications in Britain. I, for one, make no apology for the way the Post Office is doing, and will do, its job in the interests of the economy.
The right hon. Gentleman has raised a number of questions about the two-tier system. In his speech he replied to many of the complaints that he made, and I am grateful to him for acknowledging that many of the mistakes which were made at the earlier stage in the development of the two-tier system were put right. He acknowledged that locally posted second-class mails can now be delivered in the first delivery. He acknowledged that the episode about the Crowle postman who reposted the second-class mails in the post box was put right, and put right not after weeks or even days, but after hours. I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman corrected some of the complaints he made.
The burden of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was against the two-tier system as such, because he attacked the delay of second-class mails, but this is the whole essence of the two-tier system. The whole essence of it is that the customer shall have an opportunity to decide which mail should have priority, and which should not. Non-urgent mail will normally be delivered by two days after posting, and I hope that before we conclude the debate I shall have an opportunity of bringing before the House some of the facts, rather than suppositions, so that hon. Members can make their own assessment.

Mr. Barber: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that at the outset I said that I thought there may have been a case for changing the old system to this system, but I put the specific question which is troubling many people, and that is how he is able to say, as he has done on many occasions, that there was no deliberate delaying of the mail when it could have been delivered, and how that was consistent with the instructions I read and some of the examples I gave.
I hope that at long last the right hon. Gentleman will do the House the courtesy of making his points in this speech, so that my hon. Friend who speaks on these matters will have an opportunity of replying to the hon. Gentleman. We do not want the old—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions, even from the Front Bench, ought to be reasonably brief.

Mr. Stonehouse: I think it important at the outset that the House should


recognise the reason behind the two-tier system. The right hon. Gentleman displayed a supreme ignorance of the two-tier system, and what it was aimed to do. I believe that the House should start with a description of the reasons for the two-tier system, and why we had to have tariff increases associated with its introduction.
For many years this country has considered the wisdom of a two-tier system. The present Government decided to introduce it because it makes logical and operational sense, and I believe that even the right hon. Gentleman recognises that it is much better for the customer to pay a postage cost according to the service given, rather than according to contents.
Furthermore, with the mechanisation of our postal administration being improved, it would have been a handicap to have a large part of the mail in open envelopes which would not have been dealt with so effectively by the machines now being installed. Incidentally, when the right hon. Gentleman complained that there were only six automatic machines already installed, I thought that that was "a right one" because it was his party, during all the years that hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power, which denied the Post Office the investment resources to enable it to mechanise in the way that we are now doing.
Let us look at the reasons for the price increase. I acknowledge the validity of the first two of the three points made by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not accept the third one, and I shall show why in a moment. First, I accept that there was a price increase. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman said that some mails are now subject to delay, to which they were not subject before. I accept that.
The reason for the first is that postal administration, like any other public authority, is expected to make a return on the investment which the taxpayers make in it. The Government have had the courage to expect the Post Office to meet its financial objectives.
The Opposition, when in power, allowed the Post Office to run into a loss, on the postal side, of over £30 million in their last three years in office. The present Government are determined

that the Post Office administration shall make a surplus, and we have had the courage to increase the tariffs, although this would appear to have been an unpopular thing to do. Postal tariffs have risen, but nobody can suggest that because they have done so the postal service is inefficient. By all standards of comparison our postal administration is doing an extremely good job.
Let us look at the comparisons with other industries. Our rate of increase in tariffs has been very much less. During the last 25 years the price of a newspaper has increased from 1d. to 5d. The postage rate for first-class mail has risen from 2½ d. to 5d. That is a 100 per cent. increase in postal charges compared with a 400 per cent. increase in Press charges. Minimum bus fares have risen by 400 per cent. or 500 per cent. compared with the Post Office's 100 per cent.
But the most interesting comparison, and the most valid, is the comparison between British rates and those charged abroad. This comparison shows beyond any shadow of doubt that we have almost the lowest charges in Europe, even with the new rates. Only one country—Spain—charges a lower minimum postage rate than we do, and currently Spain is making a 29 per cent. loss on expenditure compared with our 1·5 per cent. or 2 per cent. surplus on expenditure.
Let us compare the various 4-oz. rates. The 4-oz. is our minimum, but in many countries a higher rate is charged. Our charge is exceptionally good in this respect. Whereas Britain charges 5d. or 4d., depending upon the speed of delivery, the Argentine charges 11½d., Australia, 1s. 6½d.; Austria, 11½d.; Belgium, 1s.; Canada, 1s. 1d.; France, 1s. 2d.; Germany, 1s. 0½d.; Greece, 2s. 4½d.; Italy, 1s. 4d.; Japan, 10d.; Holland, 8d.; New Zealand, 10d.; Pakistan, 2s. 4d.; Portugal, 1s. 5d.; Spain, 7d.; Sweden, 1s. 5½d.; Switzerland, 7d.; Turkey, 1s. 6½d., and the United States, 2s.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite do not like to hear these figures, because they demonstrate how good a postal service Britain has. Even at the new rates introduced on 16th September our charges are hundreds of per cent. less than in many other countries, despite the fact that


they charge more and give a far worse service. We make a profit, and they make a loss—some of them a huge loss. On this comparison our postal administration is extremely efficient.
When we are talking about service let us remember that in terms of the proportion of the population we are delivering to more delivery points than is the case in any other country in the world. We have 18 million delivery points. In other countries the proportion of mail delivered to doors, to addresses, is much less than here. In Germany and Sweden, over one-third of the mail is collected by the addressee. Here it is less than 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. Our standard of service is excellent because we give a first delivery finishing before 9.30 a.m. in town and also provide a reliable next-day service for first-class mail which is the envy of the whole world.
It was this that the Post Office administration really wanted to protect by the introduction of the two-tier system, because as the quantity of mails coming into the sorting departments was so great after 4 p.m. or 5 p.m., leading to an enormous peak, something had to be done to iron that out and to put the less urgent nails on one side for sorting next day, otherwise the system would have broken down.
I have; figures which show that in office after office the proportion has risen from between 70 per cent. and 75 per cent. to over 80 per cent. in the last six or eight years. It was to protect a reliable next-day delivery of first-class mail—a 92 per cent. delivery under the old system—that the two-tier system was brought in.
Of course, this meant that many envelopes posted at second-class rates after the introduction of the two-tier system would be delivered more slowly than they were before. The right hon. Gentleman referred to that fact as though it were a great failing. It is a great success. It is exactly what the Post Office was aiming for. If hon. Members opposite had only read the documents I sent them on 19th July—I sent a whole bundle to each hon. Member—they would have seen that this was one of the objects of the exercise. [Laughter.]
I said at the outset that the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to understand what the two-tier system was about, and

the fact that we now hear guffaws from the benches opposite when I make one of the key points of the whole issue shows that hon. Members opposite still do not understand.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: It was because I read the right hon. Gentleman's document and had it with me in Scotland and read it shortly after the introduction of the two-tier post that I applied, within a week of the House resuming, for the Adjournment debate.

Mr. Stonehouse: I was delighted when the hon. Gentleman obtained the Adjournment debate because I never throw away an opportunity of justifying, in the House, the work of any Department for which I may be responsible.
The problem of overnight delivery besets every postal administration.

Mr. Paul Bryan: China?

Mr. Stonehouse: The hon. Member must contain himself. He is shouting "China" at me. That has no relevance to the debate. I hope that he will make more sensible remarks when he speaks.
I have a report of the President's Commission on Postal Organisation which shows the importance which the United States attach to the reliability of a next-day service and how that country is moving towards the very two-tier system that we have adopted. The report says that overnight delivery for all first-class mail is a costly goal, and that the largest proportion of first-class mail is not urgent and does not require it. It goes on at great length to describe the advantage of a stratification scheme, which is another description of a two-tier system.
Just across the Channel, the French are thinking of introducing a two-tier system. It is because we are anxious to protect the first-class service that the two-tier system has been brought into operation, and it is on that basis that we have achieved a substantial success over the last seven weeks. If I have the fortune to catch Mr. Speaker's eye at the end of the debate I shall take the opportunity of replying to many of the points made in letters which I have received.
I now want to deal with the specific complaint about advertising. The right hon. Gentleman aimed at this complaint directly at me. I can tell the right hon.


Gentleman here and now that I accept responsibility for the inadequate advertisement to which he referred. I committed an error in not calling for the details of the advertising campaign and asking to see the mock-ups of advertisements before they appeared. These advertisements had been prepared before I became Postmaster-General. They were prepared after consultations between advertising agencies and my officials and it was not normal for a Postmaster-General to see details of advertisements of this character before they appeared in the Press.
I now acknowledge that I committed an error in not calling for this advertisement and examining it before it appeared. When I saw it for the first time in the newspapers I agreed that it had some misleading aspects and I immediately gave instructions that it should be withdrawn. It was withdrawn as soon as possible, and a new series of advertisements was substituted in its place.
I do not believe that there has been any complaint about the new series of "ads," but I ask the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to recognise that that particular advertisement was only one in the whole series. In addition, there was a whole series of leaflets giving details at great length about the new two-tier system. It is a mistake to take one advertisement out of context and attack the whole postal administration's presentation of two-tier merely on that one advertisement.
I recognise that hon. Members have had a great many complaints about the operation of two-tier. I believe that there are full replies to all these and I hope that I will have an opportunity to speak later in the debate.

7.42 p.m.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: The view of myself and my hon. and right hon. Friends on this bench is perfectly clear. We accept the two-tier system; we accept that it may be necessary and we accept even, as did the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber), that it may be desirable. But we do not accept the manner of its introduction. Nor do we accept, without further

explanation, the immediate need for the further revenue which this exercise will produce immediately. Finally, we do not for a moment accept the Postmaster-General's arithmetic.
We accept that the system may be desirable. Perhaps it is proper, and it seems sensible that the differential should be based on the nature of the service rather than the contents of the envelope, but the right hon. Gentleman must also accept that people who have had a postal service or any service for a long time do not accept change very readily in this country. Indeed, I doubt whether they accept major changes very readily anywhere. The right hon. Gentleman said that the French are about to embark on an experiment like this. If they are about to make such a major change, I am sure that they will do it with much more preparation, much better public education and much better public relations than have been adopted here.
The Government should realise that much of their unpopularity at the moment is not due to public doubt about the wisdom of their policies—although some of it may be—but more to real fears about the Government's competence. The anxiety is not about the nature of the policy, but about how the thing is done. It makes it difficult for those who, perhaps, share the right hon. Gentleman's views on this system to explain its merits to people outside when the system has been introduced in this extraordinary way.
The first question which one must ask is, why must it be introduced now? My recollection—and it will be that of other hon. Members—is that the National Board for Prices and Incomes recommended that the new charges should come into operation in April, 1969. Very well, then why should the Postmaster-General jump the gun? If he is going to justify that—I do not know whether he is—why on earth do the thing like this, in the midst of a Parliamentary Recess? Surely it must have been absolutely obvious to everyone, that even people with the best will in the world would have objections. There are certain people who are not sorry to see the postal service disorganised, and there are some in this Chamber who are sometimes delighted to go whooping through the Lobbies because a nationalised industry


is not working well, and there are people like that outside who would want to condemn the thing if they could. He has given them the best possible opportunity and great assistance by doing it in this way, in the midst of a Parliamentary Recess, when their anxieties, their grievances, whatever they may be, could not be aired in this Chamber.
Perhaps it is also a little regrettable that the Recess in which the right hon. Gentleman took this action was to be immediately followed by a Bill for Post Office reorganisation, which many people fear may result in the disappearance of the ability of this House to question the Postmaster-General on matters like this. I am not saying that sinister motives underly his actions. I am not saying that they do not, but I am not saying that they do. I am sure that it will be taken by people outside as evidence of the Postmaster-General's doubt and personal anxiety that what he was doing was indefensible, since he did it when he could not be called upon to defend it.
One would also like to hear a little more about the timing. The right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale put this point. Why on earth introduce this before the Post Office itself was ready to do it? We have heard much about instructions which were given, that the right hon. Gentleman hurried and gave different instructions the next day and that the man who was seen doing this or that was stopped. But this should never have started.
In an operation of this kind, it is surely elementary that all those concerned should be told and should understand what to do. If I worked in the Post Office, the first question which I would have wanted to ask, whatever my grade, when I read about this would have been, "What happens to the second-class mail? What are we supposed to do with it?" Some of the postmen would have a rather rude answer to give the right hon. Gentleman, I think. They want proper answers at the proper time, and the proper time is not after second thoughts, after we have seen that things are going wrong and public anxiety has been aggravated by muddle in very high places.
Why, also, was it necessary to introduce this before the new procedures in the Post Office which will make it

worth while are actually in being? How many post offices at the moment have automatic, mechanical methods of sorting? How much mail at the moment is still hand-sorted? We must accept, so far as hand sorting is concerned, that any saving in terms of a two-tier service will be minimal. It may be a desirable and highly advantageous scheme, but it is designed for a new kind of working in the Post Office which we have not yet reached. Perhaps we have, but one would like to hear details of the way in which mechanical sorting methods are working.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the two kinds of stamps. What happens? Do a 1d. and a 3d. stamp have two phosphor bands or do they not? What about a 3d. and a 2d. stamp? Do letters bearing them go slow or do they not? There is the anxiety of people using old stamps which do not have phosphor bands at all. If they happen to go into one of the post offices which happen to be automated, their mail can be 5d., 6d., 7d. or 8d., and if they use old stamps with no phosphor bands, it will go as slowly as the Postmaster-General can possibly make it go.
It should have been clear that it was wrong to impede the progress of the lower tier unnecessarily—not merely to facilitate the upper tier but to impede the lower as an act of policy to encourage people to use the more expensive stamp. For a variety of reasons of this kind, it seems to me that the whole business has been muddled, and it looks as if it will be muddled even further. One wonders what will happen—it is not all that far off and may be nearer than the complete automation of the Post Office—when we have decimalisation of the currency. What are to be the prices then?
On 14th October this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Richard Wainwright) asked the Postmaster-General:
…what estimate he has made of the postage rate for the first-class letter service, weight under 4 oz., immediately after the decimalisation of the currency"?
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
None, as it would be impracticable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th October, 1968; Vol. 770, c. 54–5.]
Surely the whole essence of the matter is to plan ahead in relation to the future


conditions in which the Post Office will be operating.
The Postmaster-General will have an opportunity to correct or to contradict me, but I hear that Elliott-Automation have received an order worth £350,000 for decimal machines for postage stamps. The implication is that the bottom rate, now 4d., will be raised to two new pence, which is 4·8 pence, and that that decision has already been made; otherwise these machines could not have been ordered. That makes nonesense of the right hon. Gentleman's answer to my right hon. Friend,
No, because it would be impracticable.
It seems to me that certain steps are so practicable that they have already been taken.
Unless the Postmaster-General comes clean on matters of this kind, he will continue to get into a situation in which the public view his activities with suspicion. I understand the difficulties. It is not his fault that further changes will be needed with the decimalisation of the currency. But at least he could tell us what are his intentions. He could let us know here and now what the new rates are to be and what is his thinking in terms of new pence. Is this a prelude to a further increase in postal charges or—I can hardly believe it—are we to see a decrease in those charges when Decimal Day arrives?
Those are matters which I put to the right hon. Gentleman about the manner of the introduction of the service. I make one final point on that issue. If he is as certain as he declares that second-class mail is not being deliberately held up in the Post Office, why does he not have an open week in the post offices to enable members of the public to see what is happening to the post, first-class and second-class? If what he says is true—and we have no reason to contradict him—that would do a great deal to restore the confidence which has been impaired by the whole business.
May I say a few words about the charges? Even if one accepts the need for more money in the Post Office—as one does—one need not accept the Postmaster-General's arithmetic. The Post Office told the National Board for Prices and Incomes that an increase of ½d. on first-class rates would produce only £7

million in a year. It was on that figure that the Prices and Incomes Board accepted the proposed 4d. and 5d. charges. But it seems to me that the figure of £7 million is highly suspect. I hope that the Postmaster-General will spell out his calculations, based on the mail statistics given in this year's Post Office Report and Accounts.
From this year's Report I see that the calculation is for 10,000 million items of first and second class mail yearly. If every item now is to cost 1d. more—except for a very small number in the 2 oz. to 5 oz. range—the additional revenue to the Post Office will be 10 million times 1d., which is approximately £40 million, which is a very different matter. It seems to me that we ought to be told about the scale of the operation. It may be that my arithmetic is wrong.
The right hon. Gentleman, after all, has access to the facts and figures. Will he tell us how much he expects to raise? On my calculation it seems that the postal services will make a profit of £20 million this year, which is far more than its target of a 2 per cent. surplus on revenue. I want to hear the right hon. Gentleman's comments, in particular, on that.
I am also concerned about differentials. The 4d. letter service made a profit last year of £11 million, which was roughly a surplus of 10 per cent. on revenue. The recent White Paper, Cmnd. 3437, dealing with the financial obligations of the nationalised industries, stated that each service should pay its way, and it strongly condemned internal cross-subsidisation between services. It stated:
The aim of pricing policy should be that the consumer should pay the true costs of providing the goods and services he consumes, in every case where these can be sensibly identified…to cross-subsidise loss-making services amounts to taxing remunerative services provided by the same undertaking and is as objectionable as subsidising from genera) taxation services which have no social justification".
The now 5d. letter service was making a very handsome profit when the charge was 4d. and it will now make a quite unwarranted profit to subsidise loss makers such as newspapers—and there may well be other services which hon. Members wish to mention.

Mr. J. T. Price: I am following the argument with some sympathy, but another factor enters into the


calculations and it is the requirement placed upon nationalised industries, including the Post Office, to generate an ever-increasing proportion of their own capital needs from revenue. This is a very serious aspect on which I hope the Minister will make some comment when he replies because I think it has already gone much too far.

Dr. Winstanley: I know that the hon. Member is particularly interested in the capitalisation of nationalised industries and that he will wish to take the matter further. But we are dealing with revenue, with income and expenditure, rather than with capital, and it would be better if I continued on that theme.
I should like to quote from a statement made by the Postmaster-General two Postmaster-Generals ago—which is not very long ago, bearing in mind the rate at which changes are made in that office. The present Secretary of State for Education and Science was then Postmaster-General. He said, on 15th March, 1967:
…there will be no general tariff increase until I am absolutely satisfied that the Post Office machine is running as efficiently and as profitably as possibly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 433.]
Can we say at the moment that the Post Office machine is running as efficiently or as profitably as possible? Have we no" seen all sorts of difficulties at every level—at the managerial level and at the fade union level, with restrictive practices of many kinds slowly, but only very slowly, being overcome?

Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: I should like to know exactly which are the restrictive practices in the Post Office to which the hon. Member is referring.

Dr. Winstanley: I had not intended to do so but, as I have been tempted, I will mention one or two. We have the question of daily balancing at post office counters. The Post Office Report and Accounts announced that a
substantial increase in productivity has been achieved at Crown Office counters by balancing tills weekly instead of daily".
But it does not mention that union resistance meant that that change was delayed for seven years, as the National Board for Prices and Incomes acknowledged.

Next is the matter of the size of gangs on telephone engineering work. Next is the matter of the employment of women. How many women engineers are there in the Post Office? There has been a certain amount of perhaps obstructive resistance—

Mr. Dobson: How does that affect the service?

Dr. Winstanley: We want to see the Post Office run as efficiently as possible and satisfying the criteria so wisely laid down by the Postmaster-General two Postmaster-Generals ago. I was suggesting that I felt that these criteria were not being satisfied either at managerial level—and I am prepared to spell those out, too—or at trade union level. I want to see much more being done along those lines before we are subjected to this enormous increase in prices, which to my mind is an entirely unnecessary increase at this time. I do not want to give detailed alternatives, but I suggest that an increase of ½d. on the cheap rate would raise £7 million a year, and I believe that that is about enough to be going on with.
I have said about enough to be going on with, surely enough to make it clear to the Postmaster-General into which Lobby I shall go. I want him to understand that I shall be going into that Lobby with sorrow for I want to see the Post Office working well. I do not wish it to work badly simply to enable me to say that the nationalised industries are a washout. I want to see the best possible functioning of the Post Office. But I honestly believe that this is not the way to make the Post Office function well and not the way to encourage people to regard nationalised industries in the way in which I know right hon. Gentlemen opposite want them to be regarded.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: I welcome this opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) and to repudiate some of his comments. His remarks about the Post Office, and particularly his complaints, were directed almost entirely against the staff of the Post Office, not just at local level but at managerial level and at headquarters. Some of his comments, which were greeted by titters


from hon. Gentlemen opposite, were disgraceful when one considers that the Post Office has always given, and continues to give, an excellent service. The two-tier system has in no way interrupted this excellent standard of service.
At least, the hon. Member for Cheadle admitted that there was not much in his comments about alleged restrictive practices in the Post Office. What he said about there having been a seven-year delay was nonsense. What he said about other matters was equal nonsense, particularly in relation to the two-tier system. I do not know what all the fuss is about. It all goes to show how ignorant some members of the Liberal Party are on Post Office affairs. When challenged to give concrete examples, they merely make trumped-up allegations.
I regret that the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) is not in his place. He complained that postmen were furious. They are, but they are furious about the attacks that are being made on them when the attacks should be made on events which have nothing to do with them. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite know, for example, that there are accurate figures to show that meter postings have been deliberately pre-dated?
I could quote an example of a hundred and one different addresses being deliberately pre-dated, to different sources, before being handed in to the Post Office. On arrival at their destination, the first cry is, "The post has been delayed". If mail is pre-dated in this way there can be no redress at local offices. How can hon. Gentlemen opposite consider such an experiment as being anything but a deliberate stunt? The same could be said of both bulk posting and other schemes. The same considerations applied in 1963.
It is not the slightest good hon. Gentlemen opposite trumping up complaints of this sort in an effort to prove that the postal services are falling down on the job. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have short memories. The First Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries contained comments made by the then Postmaster-General. He said that the postal system was first-class compared with the Continent, that it was cheaper than the services on the Con-

tinent and cheaper than the services in most other countries.
Some hon. Gentlemen opposite may try to make out that the two-tier system has been discredited, but that is nonsense. A C.B.I. authority posted 302 letters with 5d. stamps attached to each on 1st October, just under a month after the two-tier service was introduced. By first post the following day 292 of the letters arrived, well over 95 per cent. of the total. Ten were delivered the following day, the main reason being the physical impossibility of transferring mail from one point to another—another factor which is not taken into account by Post Office critics. Mr. John Davies, Director-General of the C.B.I., commented:
The 5d. post is all that it is cracked up to be.
That is a fair assessment of the system.
The 5d. post has taken the place of the 4d. that existed before the two-tier system came in. Nobody objects to the principle being described in that way. It has not decreased the urgency of postal deliveries and the percentage delivery on the day after posting still remains.
I am never sure, when I hear hon. Gentlemen opposite complaining, whether they believe that the 4d. post should have remained at that price, or whether all letters should have been increased to 5d. If the charge is made, as the hon. Member for Cheadle made it, that there should be no change until we have full mechanisation in the Post Office, then we will be a long time waiting for change.

Dr. Winstanley: Dr. Winstanley indicated dissent.

Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman did not say that, then other hon. Gentlemen opposite did.
Under-capitalisation over many years in the Post Office has kept this side of the Post Office business labour-intensive. About 76 per cent. of the charges on the postal side goes in wages and labour costs. Such a service cannot be changed simply by increasing the cost of the mail, since as soon as wages rise one must increase costs again, stamp prices go up—and as soon as there is difficulty in recruiting postmen, wages must be increased again, postal costs go up and before one knows what has happened, one must increase the prices of stamps again.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that after the Government have been in power for four years they could not have achieved more than six automatic machines in the Post Office? Is he saying that the Government are that inefficient?

Mr. Dobson: I believe that five of them were introduced during 13 years of Tory rule. The hon. Gentleman must know that the introduction of such machinery takes a long time. The under-capitalisation of the Post Office from 1950 onwards has resulted in this situation. In those years major efforts should have been made to put things right, but they were not.
The problems of the Post Office could not have been put right by charging 5d. for every letter. As I explained, this being a labour-intensive industry, costs would have continued to rise. It meant finding an alternative. The difficulty experienced in recruiting postmen has arisen not only because of the wages paid but because of the atrocious hours that must be worked. They are not only long hours, but hours worked over a difficult span.
The two-tier system will ease the load on the postal services. When 35 million items of mail are posted every day, most of them after 5 p.m., an unprecedented load is placed on sorting offices in the early part of the evening and through the night. This places a heavy burden on the Post Office if deliveries the following day are to be maintained. Thus, a method must be found to spread the load over the day, and the two-tier system provides the answer.
The two-tier system was not trumped up by the Postmaster-General. Indeed, it has been talked about for many years. Serious discussions started about three years ago. If hon. Gentlemen opposite think that this is the first they have heard of it, they should study the First Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, in which the alternatives were clearly set out. The Select Committee preferred the two-tier service to all other alternatives. The problem was to find an answer, and the two-tier service was considered the best one.
It might be wise for me to conclude with a quotation from the journal of the Union of Post Office Workers, which

early next year will have had 50 years' experience of Post Office matters. For many years its first obligation of membership has been to give a first-class service to the public. This was part of its programme, its creed. Writing in the journal the present secretary of the postal side of the union, Mr. William Failes, says:
Two-tier is an attempt to give an even better service to first class mail than is given at the moment.
That is his first statement on 31st August. I claim that the figures which I have quoted from the Financial Times and from the C.B.I., show that this has been achieved.
Mr. Failes goes on:
It is necessary to have such a system to prevent a gradual breakdown in postal services.
Anyone who knows about the postal services will realise that this is what we were facing until my right hon. Friend decided to embark on this new venture. It has had its difficulties. It is the first real major change covering the thousands of offices throughout the country in over 100 years. Naturally, it had teething troubles, but it is now working extremely well, and will continue to work even better.
Mr. Failes went on to say:
The critics of the two-tier service are cither unaware of these facts, or they are deliberately distorting them to suit their political ends.
I believe that to be the fact. If they do not know, they are certainly guilty of doing it for political ends. Mr. Failes ends by saying that he did not think that they would succeed in destroying the two-tier service.
I hope that they will not succeed in doing so, because it is something we ought to have not only for the benefit of the postal workers, but for everyone who wants a first-class mail service at the right cost, which is remarkably low. They will get this service if we persevere.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. Ray Mawby: The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) was rather upset. I hope that he does not really believe what he began by saying, that there are many people who are trying to blame the postal staff. There is no intention to do so. Our aim


is to try to show that this has happened regardless of the sense of service which Post Office staff have always had, and which is recognised by all. There will always be two types of mail, the printed paper and circular category and the higher rate.
Most people accept that this is a right and proper way to operate the Post Office. We all know of the difficulty of people posting letters all at once at the end of the day, swamping sorting offices. The use of two types of postage under the previous system was of some assistance. At least there were no general complaints of delay, even with printed paper, circulars, birthday cards or anything else.
There were no general complaints. Obviously, there were cards which got caught in the bag, or the frame, or a letter which was found some time afterwards. But there were no general complaints of delay within the system. This is basically because the Post Office staff have always been held in high regard and they were doing their job properly. This new system is said to give us the privilege of sealing our printed paper matter—and paying 33 per cent. more. As a result of this system there have been widespread complaints that letters are being seriously delayed.
We are not now talking, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman when he was speaking about second-class mail taking a little longer, about mail arriving on the second day; we are talking about serious delays. This is matter not of an odd letter, but of delays of a large volume of the 4d. mail. This is terribly important.

Mr. James A. Dunn: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what proportion of the letters he alleges have been seriously delayed have been deliberately pre-dated? This is necessary to form a proper estimate.

Mr. Mawby: I listened with interest to what has been said about this point. I have never heard the suggestion before that there was deliberate pre-dating on mail which went through the meter. This is something of which I know nothing. Almost all of the complaints that have come to me—and they have been sent from all parts of the country—are letters with the normal stamp and frank upon them. I do not think there is any

metered mail. Normally metered mail is not posted into the box, but handed to a post office official. If the practice of entering pre-dated mail is widespread, and it is being handed to a post office official, then all I can say is that the service is worse than I had thought.
This system was introduced during the Recess. During that time I received many complaints from constituents. I was interviewed on radio, and following that received complaints from all over the country. Incidentally, this shows that the Post Office can never lose, because it had an increased income through all the complaining letters sent to me. In the case of those letters, it was obvious that there had been instructions deliberately to hold up the 4d. post. I heard the right hon. Gentleman on television when he said that there was no intention to hold up the 4d. mail. He said that the whole point of the two-tier system was to speed the 5d. mail. Being very naive, I believed the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: You did not!

Mr. Mawby: My hon. Friend will perhaps forgive me for being a bit naive. This was the impression I got. I believed it. From the letters I have received, this is shown to be untrue.
I have a letter from someone at Reading, who says:
During the first two weeks of its operation I was chatting to one of the older postmen, who appears to have had some pride in the service. He told me that the collection was taken into the office, and first-class letters taken to the sorting department at once. Second-class letters were then immediately put on one side, and could not be dealt with until the following morning. Consequently, some of the morning deliveries were unusually light, leaving"—
I cannot read all of the writing here—
the labour to the men doing the second delivery.
Here was an allegation that there had been a deliberate hold-up of the 4d. mail entering the office and it had to be held overnight. It was not because the first-class mail was so large, but that the first send-off from that sorting office was still very light indeed.

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Member started by saying that there had always been two different types of mail. Could he explain how this is different from the previous system? Would he agree that it is exactly the same as the previous system?

Mr. Mawby: No, it is not exactly the same. If it were exactly the same, there would not be this tremendous delay, which is general, of all 4d. mail.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is not one of the differences that under the previous system there were criminal sanctions against any servant of the Post Office who deliberately held up the mail and those criminal sanctions were withdrawn, after the House rose for the Summer Recess, in the Order which the Postmaster-General put before the House?

Mr. Mawby: There has always been the law that no one could hold up Her Majesty's mails. That is laid down clearly, and every servant of the Post Office knew it. Every postmaster and sub-postmaster could use his initiative, but under the new circumstances they are not allowed to do so. Under the new Regulations—against which we can only pray—servants of the Post Office are allowed deliberately to hold up Her Majesty's mail in contravention of what was the law of the land.
In my rural constituency there are many small towns and villages, and any change in the system or in the instructions can have tremendous effects there. A constituent wrote to me saying:
Certain letters were posted to me…on Friday 20th with 4d. stamps affixed. They were not delivered with the Saturday morning post (and there is no second post anyway on Saturday) and I decided to collect them from the post office before it closed for the weekend.
That is a normal practice. He said:
I was astounded to find that it is not permitted to passover any mail which has not qualified for the transit time paid for. This means that a fourpenny stamped letter must remain in transit (or stay where it is) and remain undelivered for at least 48 hours whatever the circumstances. I understood that mail would not be withheld but this is a direct contravention if such is the case.
This is a complete contravention of everything the right hon. Gentleman said, particularly in his television interview, when he said that the 4d. mail would not be unnecessarily held up. In the past this man has been able to go to his local post office and obtain letters which arrived too late for the postman to deliver. He could not receive them, as the local postmaster now has definite instructions that those; letters must not be handed over and they must remain in transit for that period.
Further evidence has been obtained from rural postmen. They often have a very large area to cover. I have been told by these rural postmen that they have been given definite instructions that on their first delivery they must not take any 4d. mail, even though there is room in the van and it would not make the sack heavier. Often the postman has to go out on the second occasion delivering letters which he could have delivered on his first round.
I received a letter from Plymouth, which said:
on Friday 27th September I received two letters (4d. mail) both of which were posted in Penzance and franked 24th September. One of those was additionally franked, Liverpool 12.15 a.m., 26th September. Both arrived at the same address by second post.
The Post Office must have thrown away its maps if now the 4d. post goes from Penzance to Plymouth via Liverpool.
I received a letter from someone in Rustington, Sussex, saying:
I have just learned from the late delivery postman here that the man on the adjoining 'walk', which covers the local Ministry of Social Security, was fresh on the job today. He had a 'mountain' of post for the Social Security office and noticed some fourpennies among them. He was told to sort through the 400 or 500 letters he had and take out and deliver the fivepennies and leave the four-pennies 'til a later round. How farcical! He could have delivered the lot at the first call and let the Ministry get on with what were probably sickness claims. Instead of which he had to waste time unnecessarily sorting this load and delaying the delivery, which obviously will delay the claims for sick pay".
I suppose the Postmaster-General would say that this matter had to be dealt with in this way if we are to ensure that the 5d. post is dealt with expeditiously. I cannot see why the mail should have to be sorted in that way because in the time taken to sort it the postman could have delivered that post.
Greetings cards are a great problem. I shall take my right hon. Friend's advice and post my Christmas cards tomorrow to make certain that they arrive in time. Children's birthdays are now a nightmare. What is a parent to do when he wants to send his child a birthday card?

Mr. Dobson: Put a 5d. stamp on.

Mr. Mawby: If that is so, why was not the Postmaster-General completely honest


about this service? Why did he not say, "We want your money. We want to ensure that you all pay, not an additional 1d. for your cards, but an additional 2d., unless you want to make certain that they do not arrive on the right day"? This might be justified if the 5d. post was now more reliable than it was, but it is not. The percentage of first-class mail delivered on the day following posting is very little different from the percentage of the old 4d. post so delivered.
This is a confidence trick. It is a way of trying to convince the public that an increase of 25 per cent. in one status and of 33⅓ per cent. in another status is not an increase in price but is giving a better service.

Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman is normally very fair in his assessments. Does he agree that birthday cards have always been a nightmare for parents who have been waiting for a birthday card to be delivered to their child when it has been inexplicably delayed? Birthday cards carrying a 3d. stamp and unsealed often arrived a day late. This was difficult to understand because, even though they were posted almost next door to the point of delivery, they would arrive late. That system broke down from time to time. The hon. Gentleman knows that a card can get caught in the machine, or in a postbag, or be delayed in some way which does not justify condemnation of Post Office officials.

Mr. Mawby: I was not seeking to exaggerate or to prove that under the old system all birthday cards were delivered on time but that very few are now delivered on time. There were mistakes in the past, but I did not have the type of complaints in the past that I am getting at the moment.
Despite all the money which was spent to tell us what a friendly postman we have, this system is giving the public the wrong impression of post office staff. It would have been much more honest to have given the basic reasons for increasing the charges and not to try to get away with this jiggery-pokery. The one nightmare I have under the new system is that the Postmaster-General may tender his resignation and the letter will never reach No. 10.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Hobden: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), because I was still a serving member of the Post Office when he was Assistant Postmaster-General. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman insisted that he was not attacking Post Office staff, although as a rule people who say that immediately go on to criticise the service and, indirectly, to criticise Post Office staff, because in the end it comes back to the man who faces the letters on the sorting office floor, to the man who sorts the letters, and to the man who delivers them. This is an implied criticism of Post Office staff.

Mr. Mawby: Not so.

Mr. Hobden: It is no good the hon. Gentleman denying it. This is another example of the field days we have here when the Opposition choose the nationalised industries as their political punch-bag and have another go at one of them.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Is my hon. Friend really describing the sparsely-filled benches as "a field day"?

Mr. Hobden: I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend has drawn that to my attention. I intended to say later that we are subjected to this synthetic indignation about the new two-tier system, but there are few hon. Members on the benches opposite to make these protests. This is typical of the Opposition. They have these periodic field days—whether they are well attended is neither here nor there—as a means of attacking the nationalised industries.
When the hon. Member for Totnes says that there were no general complaints under the old system, what he really means is that when he and his right hon. and hon. Friends were in office there was no tendency to initiate debates about the nationalised industries and they were kept out of the way. Only when in opposition do right hon. and hon. Members opposite bring out all their synthetic indignation against the Post Office.
As I say, all this argument and complaint comes down in the end to the Post Office staff. As one who was


employed in the Post Office all his working life until coming here in 1964, I must tell the House that Post Office staffs throughout the country sometimes get a bit fed up at being in the middle of the political crossfire of these debates. I thought it uncharacteristic of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley)—I say that quite sincerely—to speak as he did about restrictive practices in the Post Office.

Dr. Winstanley: The hon. Gentleman must be fair. I enumerated a number of restrictive practices because I was pressed to do so by one of his hon. Friends. I said that I could have enumerated just as many managerial defects in the Post Office as well.

Mr. Hobden: I propose to be fair. I have been a member of the Union of Post Office Workers since I left school. It is a fine union, with one of the best sets of forward-looking officers that one could find in any British trade union. If the hon. Member for Cheadle had gone to the union, and asked for information, he would have found that there were not these restrictive practices and that his criticisms were not valid. The truth is that a good many hon. Members opposite would not know a restrictive practice if they saw one. There are in the Post Office, probably, fewer restrictive practices—I cannot think of any—than in any other branch of trade and industry in this country.
The hon. Member for Totnes went on about the standard of service now, saying that it was even worse than he thought it was and nothing like the previous system. He accused the Government of deliberately holding up the cheaper rate mail, although my right hon. Friend had told him that this principle is implied in the two-tier system and it was basic to the Report from the Prices and Incomes Board. Although the hon. Gentleman was Assistant Postmaster-General, he could not have known much about the Post Office. The cheap matter has always been delayed. There is no change on that score. If he had worked in the Post Office, the hon. Gentleman would have known that.
I applaud the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Cheadle that there should be an "open week". I had it in mind to suggest much the same. I am

thinking not so much of the general public—they could come later—but I am sure that this would be a good time, during the next few weeks, for hon. Members to see the working of our post offices. Do not wait till the Christmas rush. So many Members of Parliament seem to think of the Post Office only at Christmas.
I suggest that they should go in the near future to see all the operations which Post Office workers have to perform. They would see the work coming in from the collector's vans and going on to the facing table. It is all very well to sneer and say that there are only six facing machines in the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson), put the blame where it really lies, that is, on the previous Conservative Government for their failure to invest, a failure to invest not only in our postal services but in the telephone service as well, which hon. Members have the cheek to criticise for its alleged inefficiencies.
I was relieved to hear the hon. Member for Totnes say that Post Office staffs are highly thought of. That was not the impression which they had in 1963, when he was Assistant Postmaster-General, and the then Postmaster-General, the former Member for Liverpool, Toxeth, Mr. Reginald Bevins, refused a justified wage increase to postal staffs and brought about the first strike which the Post Office had ever known.

Mr. Mawby: Would the hon Gentleman tell the House the climax of that occasion, when there was an inquiry, as a result of which there was an increase?

Mr. Hobden: There was an increase, after the Post Office staffs were forced into the first strike in their history.
The hon. Gentleman raised two other issues. He said that one cannot pick up mail at the Post Office now as one used to be able to do. But one can do so. I advise him to write to my right hon. Friend and ensure that the person who wrote to him is enabled to do that
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about a letter going from Penzance to Plymouth via Liverpool. What has that to do with the two-tier system? As an ex-Assistant Postmaster-General, the hon.


Gentleman should know that Post Office staffs are as human as anybody else. That was obviously a mis-sort; the letter was mis-sorted to Liverpool. Such complaints cannot be dealt with here. They should go through the normal procedure to my right hon. Friend or the local head postmaster. Sometimes there are very good reasons why such things happen.

Mr. Dunn: There was mention of a letter going from Penzance to Plymouth via Liverpool, but I recall that the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) said that it arrived the same day, so the postal services at Liverpool are excellent. They send letters over double the journey in less time.

Mr. Hobden: My hon. Friend should declare an interest there.
The debate shows that the Opposition have an odd sense of priorities. I have tried to defend the Post Office and its staffs against some of their weirder attacks from hon. Members opposite. Basically, there has been a failure of public relations which nobody could deny, least of all my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, who has been quite honest this evening in admitting certain mistakes as the administrative head of the Department. I am sure that he would also say that no blame attaches to the ordinary members of the Post Office staff. Probably all that has happened is that there have been some growing pains in the introduction of the new service, which have probably been solved. I believe that it has been shown that a higher percentage of letters is getting through more quickly than under the old system, and that the new two-tier system has more than justified its introduction.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemp-town (Mr. Hobden) is a union member, and therefore it is interesting to hear his views on the subject. It is a pity that he does not speak more often in Post Office debates, particularly if he is going to make remarks about attendance at our debates.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Opposition used the issue out of synthetic indignation and as a political punchbag,

and the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) made the same allegation. They must know that it is utter nonsense. The Opposition have behaved with remarkable restraint on the matter. Our Front Bench spokesman on Post Office affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan), let a whole month go by before pronouncing on the subject. The matter has arisen entirely as a result of public disquiet and agitation. The Opposition have followed that public agitation; they have not created it.
Until this afternoon, most people had a good deal of sympathy for the Postmaster-General, because they realised that he had not created the present mess. But this evening he has gone a long way towards forfeiting that sympathy in three ways. The first is the appalling complacency which he showed. He read out a long list to show how cheap and how good the postal service still was. That is quite true, but he should realise that not even the present Government could wreck the postal service in four years. Therefore, to say that it is still cheaper than any other is not very much when its charges have risen by 40 per cent. since his party came to power.
The right hon. Gentleman has forfeited our sympathy in a second way in that he has not made a prepared speech at the beginning of the debate but has waited until the end to make a serious speech. He should have answered the criticisms at the beginning of the debate, and then perhaps one of his predecessors—the Minister of Technology or the Minister of Power—could have wound up. That would have been a far better and fairer way of organising the debate.
The third way in which the right hon. Gentleman has forfeited our sympathy is that he has made virtually no attempt to meet the two charges made against him, the charge of deception and the charge or incompetence over the introduction of the new system. It is true that he repudiated the worst advertisement, but it is not sufficient just to say that the advertisements were inadequate. In the summer I asked him about some of the other advertising and said that I hoped that in future it would be better. So he had every reason to be wary about the advertising that was going out. He has now repudiated the advertising firm, though


as far as we know, it was not to blame at all. It is hardly a very noble action to shuffle off responsibility on to the wrong shoulders.

Mr. Stonehouse: The hon. Gentleman would, no doubt, like to know that some of the advertisements that the advertising agents put forward in their original plan were deplorable and rightly rejected by my advisers.

Mr. Gilmour: That does not meet the point whether the advertising agents advised the right hon. Gentleman and the Post Office generally to come clean at the inception of the scheme. If the Postmaster-General wishes to deny that, that would be a rather more significant intervention than he has just made. Also, it is not just the deception about the advertisements. There has also been deception about the service itself since it began.
On the advertising point, it is a little odd that the Labour Party, so we read, has set up a working party to inquire into advertising that is put out by private industry. Apparently it intends to set up a watch-dog over private industry advertising. It is hardly in a position to do that when the advertising that a Government Department puts out is far worse than anything any private firm has put out for years.
The second charge made against the right hon. Gentleman—he has utterly failed to answer it—is about the ill-preparation and the incompetence with which the scheme was organised. It was meant to spread the load, but we learn that the amount of overtime worked increased after the two-tier system came in, instead of going down.
I have already talked about the price going up. The right hon. Gentleman says that this shows his and the Government's courage in meeting their obligations. All that has happened is that the Government have contracted out of their prices and incomes policy while imposing it on industry.
The right hon. Gentleman told us proudly that a very high percentage of people now use the 5d. service. That is not a matter for pride. It is simply and solely the result of the 4d. service being so unreliable that people feel compelled to use the 5d. service. The same result

could have been achieved by burning or throwing away all the 4d. mail.
It is significant that it was not until 22nd October, five weeks after the introduction of the two-tier system, that the right hon. Gentleman issued firm instructions to postmen to collect 4d. and 5d. letters from pillar boxes at the same time. Some would say that in delaying for that time the Postmaster-General had been a little lazy or negligent. I do not make that charge. The right hon. Gentleman has said what a great success the new system is. But only if the 4d. post could be delayed could people be persuaded to use the 5d. post.
While this was happening, we were treated to more deliberate deception by the Post Office. We were told that letters were not being delayed but merely being deferred, or that they were not being deferred but merely delayed—I forget which. However, it does not seem to make much difference. Then we were told that when they were deferred, it was not bad treatment of the 4d. post, but good treatment of the 5d. post. That was equally 1984 Newspeak.
So far, the whole system has had a deleterious effect upon business efficiency, because it results in far smaller proportions of post arriving in the morning. Most businesses are geared to deal with post in the mornings, so that it is got out of the way. With respect to the Postmaster-General, I have considerable scepticism about some of his figures, but, on his own admission, the proportion of letters delivered in London by the first post has come down from 75 per cent. to 55 per cent. and, in most people's experience, a good deal more than that. Obviously the failure to deliver in the early morning has a disruptive and slowing-down effect on British business. It is deplorable that the right hon. Gentleman did not deal with this point in the early part of his speech.
The scheme has been a deception not only in its advertising, but in the way in which it has been defended and explained since coming into operation. It has been characterised by monumental ineptitude wholly typical of this Government's conduct of affairs.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. William Price: I hope that I will be forgiven for not following


the points made by the last four hon. Gentlemen who have spoken from the benches opposite. My reason is the best possible. I have yet to hear anything worth following. We have had the usual mixture of prejudice and misrepresentation from those warriors. It has been the sort of prejudice and misrepresentation that we hear whenever the public services are debated. The attitude of the Tories to people in the nationalised industries and the Civil Service has always fascinated me. They have not a good word to say for them between General Elections, but they will be back, just as they have been in the past, grovelling for their votes when the time comes.
There are those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite for whom the Post Office could in no circumstances do right. If my right hon. Friend promised that their letters would be delivered the day before they were written, they would still complain. It is in their nature. That is how they operate. It is the basis of their philosophy, and due regard should be paid to that.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The only surprise is that the Postmaster-General has not promised us that. It would be in no way out of character.

Mr. Price: I doubt very much whether anyone writes to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), but, assuming that he receives one or two letters, it is to be hoped that they will arrive on the day before they are written.
What is the cardinal sin that the Post Office has committed? As I understand, rightly or wrongly, it has followed the principles of private enterprise, which have always dictated that one pays a higher price for a superior product. If hon. Members opposite are saying that there should be one product at one price fixed by the Government and strictly controlled at the lowest level, I would welcome the proposal with open arms. If that is the basis of their argument, I will join them in the Lobby tonight.
However, they have no intention of extending their deep moral arguments beyond the public services. When faced with private enterprise, they become transformed. Their interest in their constituents is overtaken by an overriding interest for their shareholders.
I want now to deal with the allegation made in some quarters that the Post Office has deliberately misled the public. The National Board for Prices and Incomes made the position perfectly clear on page 82 of its Report:
…it has been estimated that all local traffic (which represents 30 per cent. of the total) will be sent second-class because it is the Post Office's intention normally to deliver local mail the day after posting. It will, however, retain the right to defer such traffic where necessary…
A subsequent paragraph said:
Under the new proposals the average volume of first-class mail to be cleared at the evening peak may be reduced by half. The balance of mail will merely be faced and stamped and then placed on one side for subsequent sorting.
Whether the new system is justified, the position was made perfectly clear as long ago as March of this year and at least the Postmaster-General can plead not guilty to charges of deceit by himself or his predecessors.
It is not my argument that the system is working perfectly. If, by perfection, we mean that every single item is delivered at exactly the time expected, we have never had perfection and never will. The very size of the task—there has been mention of 55 million items a day—the nature of the work, the difficulties of finding and keeping trained staff, the comparatively low wages, all help to create serious problems for the Post Office. But it is my case that the Post Office, as the Postmaster-General rightly said, is one of the cheapest and most efficient in the world, that the two-tier system has been subjected to a great deal of unfair abuse, much of it politically motivated, and that a great deal of the shouting has come from industry.
I recently received a complaint from a firm in my constituency which is bitterly opposed to the 5d. mail. It had received a letter which had been delayed for 24 hours, a very serious matter. It is significant that shortly after the beginning of the year I wrote to this firm on a minor straightforward matter, and it took it three and a half weeks to reply. Hon. Members may take it from me that that matter was brought to its attention in no certain terms.
The Financial Times quoted a firm saying that the new service
is worse than second rate, a complete shambles, as frustrating as a dock strike".


A journalist may have thought that up. As, even in the early stages, 94 per cent. of the first-class mail was getting through on time, one might be forgiven for suggesting that that was a rather harsh judgment.
I come to the next matter touched on by the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Sir Ian Gilmour) who, like his hon. Friends, is no longer with us. The same article quoted a London Chamber of Commerce spokesman, who came out with this gem:
Frankly, most companies are not geared to dealing with incoming mail after lunch.
What are they geared up to do? What do they do after lunch? Yet these are the people who expect the Post Office to sort and deliver 35 million items after tea. I hope that the House will forgive me for smiling at the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber). I would be delighted to know what these people do after lunch.
As was to be expected, The Times, as is its wont, got on its hind legs in an editorial and said:
Under this system the Post Office is making its special contribution to depressing the standards of British business efficiency.
That takes some beating for high-minded drivel. Is business efficient when, apparently, it cannot answer a letter after lunch? If The Times could induce its business friends to answer their letters one-fifth as fast as the Post Office delivers them, the country would not be in the mess it is in.
I could produce many such quotations, most of them outrageous, some as comical as we have heard from the benches opposite, and most of them deliberately designed to create the worst possible image of the Post Office. The National Board for Prices and Incomes was right when it pointed out that many people have strong views on Post Office services and that individual stories about posts or telephones—usually about their alleged shortcomings—are as common as Londoners' bomb stories in war time.
Instead, I rely on an interesting article in the Sunday Times of 20th October, headed:
The 5d. Mail: sabotage by franking machine, postmen claim.

It began with this interesting paragraph:
Post Office workers, bitter about the way they have been blamed by the public for delays in the new two-tier letter service, yesterday accused some firms of sabotage by deliberately putting old dates on letters going through franking machines. On top of this are firms which are habitually careless about changing the dates on machines. The result, say the postmen, is to give a false picture of the 5d. post's effect.… In one case. investigated by the G.P.O., a customer handed in to a sorting office 2,000 letters which were franked with a date four days earlier.
The final quotation is most interesting, and I am prepared to have as many copies run off as maybe if hon. Gentlemen opposite will only ask
The Post Office says its investigators have also checked a number of cases not involving franking machines and found that office management lapses are often to blame. A boss dictates his letters and does not get round to signing them for a day or two, or secretaries forget to post them. On arrival, the envelope is destroyed and the date on the letter is the only evidence.
I ask the Postmaster-General what study is being made into these alleged practices and what action can be taken against firms which, either through incompetence or malice, are doing the Post Office a great deal of harm?
I should also like to ask my right hon. Friend about incorrect addressing of letters and parcels. Anyone who has been round a post office at Christmas time, as most of us have, knows the extent of the problem. I understand that in Rugby hundreds of letters every week have to be scrapped—no doubt many bearing a 5d. stamp—because it is impossible to decipher the address. How many letters nationally are torn up every week and who gets the blame? The good old postman!
There must be thousands of people who are criticising the Post Office this week for letters which never arrive and over which it has no control. I wonder how many of the less reputable firms and individuals will be blaming the Post Office for losing letters that were never written! I am told that this is one of the oldest tricks amongst some of our business colleagues. I am not saying colleagues in this House, but I know of firms which have done this and I can produce the evidence to anyone who wants it.
I recently had a classic example of a mail order firm—a paragon of virtue!


One of my constituents sent money and did not get the product. So I wrote and asked why. The firm assured me that it had written three times to my constituent, a lady, and that each time the Post Office had lost the letter. That was interesting enough. Even more fascinating was that it said that on three occasions it had also sent the product, and that British Railways had lost it on each occasion. I hope that I may be forgiven for telling the House that I wrote and called the firm a barefaced liar—and I never got a reply.
I wonder, too—and I would be interested to know whether the Postmaster-General has any evidence—how many firms will this week mix up franked 4d. letters with the 5d. post. I understand that the Post Office frequently discovers first-class letters in second-class bundles.
I do not say that all is well. We know that the Post Office is facing severe problems, but what I find grossly unfair about the attitude of the Opposition is their refusal to acknowledge the real difficulties in maintaining the service and building upon it.
What is the alternative to a 5d. and 4d. two-tier system? There can be only one answer, and hon. Gentlemen opposite know it. It can only be 5d. for everybody. If the Postmaster-General had adopted that approach, there would have been far less criticism than that to which he has been subjected. Here was a genuine attempt to rationalise the system, and at the same time to keep prices within reason. We know what a neurotic reception it got, particularly from the newspapers, yet these are the people—I worked for them for a time—who happily put up prices by 25 per cent. every so often without batting an eyelid. These are the people, aided by their friends on the benches opposite, who have caused most of the trouble.
My major criticism of the Post Office lies in the way that it has handled its public relations. This has been mentioned by other hon. Members, and, I think, quite rightly. It is said—and I accept this as a valid criticism—that the Post Office tried to con the public into thinking that they were getting something for nothing. But why the bitter attack on the Post Office alone? The whole basis of advertising is that one cons people into

buying something that they do not want. That is what advertising is all about. The only difference between those firms which have their representatives on the benches opposite, and the Post Office, is that the Post Office got caught.
I could go on for a long time, but I conclude by saying that the Postmaster-General will soon be on his way to greener pastures. He has a major task on his hands. We look forward to improvements in the system. We expect to see the two-tier system operating efficiently, and we hope that industry will follow the lead; but we shall not expect a kind word from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, for that would be alien to the narrow political doctrine which dominates their attitude to the Post Office, just as it dominates their attitude to all the other nationalised industries.
I would not exchange all the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite for my village postwoman. They are nothing more, and nothing less, than a bunch of 5d. "phoneys", and they ought to be treated as such.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Tom Boardman: I shall not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) with his irrelevancies. I have been shocked by the complacency and evasiveness of the Postmaster-General. By his complacency he has shown unmistakably his attitude that the man in Whitehall knows best. The right hon. Gentleman does not understand what makes business tick. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not realise that this delay in the post means that transactions, requests for quotations, orders, and so on, which used to be completed in five days, now take 14, thus slowing down the whole tempo of business.
This delay in the mails results in the building up of stocks, and is highly inflationary because of the amount of credit which results from people taking longer to pay their accounts. It may be said that they should use the 5d. post, pay 25 per cent. more. As the Postmaster-General knows, from many of the letters which I have sent to him, the results are extremely unsatisfactory. I remind him that in one instance 26 letters out of 50 that arrived at one firm—they were all 5d. letters—took 48 hours or more to arrive.
What is the amount of additional overtime being worked by postal staff? Is it correct that counter and writing staff in many post offices have been, and are, spending Sundays to catch up with arrears of work? Secondly, is it correct that instructions have been given to omit time stamps from letters which previously were franked with time stamps when they were posted? Is it also correct that many letters do not bear the franking stamp of the post office until long after they have been posted, they are held up unfranked?
Is it correct that now only about 25 per cent. of the letters posted on one day are delivered the next day? The Postmaster-General has said that about 30 per cent. of the post goes as first-class mail today, of which 94 per cent. is delivered the next day. On my arithmetic that means that about 25 per cent. of all the post is delivered in 24 hours and the remaining 75 per cent. much later, after at least 48 hours after posting.
What has angered people above all is the deceptive way in which the Postmaster-General has tried to kid us by his advertisement, saying that we are all better off. To our queries we have been given quotations of postal rates in other countries. but we are told how we are better off under the new system as compared with the old. The hallmark of the Government is that their postal system is more costly and more inefficient—and its introduction has been more dishonestly presented—than we normally expect even from them.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. Paul Bryan: This has been a notable debate, first, because the Postmaster-General has made not one but two appearances at the Dispatch Box. He did no: come as a volunteer; nor did we expect him to do so. But we did expect him to come slightly more as a penitent than he has. He was so satisfied about the way in which things were going that we began to wonder whether he yet realises the gravity of what has been going on in the last seven weeks in our postal services.
Not long ago he told us that this was the biggest change in the Post Office for 100 years. Does he know that it has also been the biggest mess for 100 years? He told us, when chaos was at its highest, that he was delighted. He told us, when

he and we were swamped with letters, that it was going better than he expected, and this very evening he has told us that the whole thing is a great success. During the debate we have had ample evidence—to put it moderately—that the first seven weeks of the two-tier system have gone very badly. The public confirm this; Members of Parliament confirm it, and so does every member of the Post Office staff that I have met.
I want the House to consider why the system has gone badly, and to what degree we can account the Postmaster-General and his predecessors as responsible—owing to their lack of foresight and lack of preparation—for the breakdown that we have had to suffer. No one has emphasised the fact that the root cause of all these troubles—the thing that made them absolutely inevitable—was the decision to combine the introduction of the two-tier system with a rise in charges. Once that decision was taken, a calamity was bound to occur. I cannot think why this was not foreseen. The Post Office Users' Council warned the Government about this. Dr. Kamm, its Chairman, said:
We warned them, most emphatically, that it should not be put into operation at the same time as a price increase".
The Minister may say that Dr. Kamm is hardly an expert or a professional in these matters. But we also have the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries foreseeing this trouble. We therefore have a right to ask why the Government courted it.
There is only one answer, despite the fine words of the Postmaster-General. This was done to camouflage the price rise that was going to come into effect with the introduction of the two-tier system. It happened because they were frightened of the odium of a price rise, not because they acted with courage. If they had faced the mistake, they would not have been so unhappy now. If they had put prices up—if that was what they had to do—and three months later had brought in this two-tier system, it would have been acceptable, understandable and almost welcome, had it been better done. Better still, however, it would have been honest and creditable. People would have believed that it was possible to get a cheaper service if it was shown that it would be a worse service.
But this is exactly the opposite of the sort of "sell" they got. I challenge the Postmaster-General to tell us that, if he had to live the last eight weeks again, he would still introduce the two-tier system simultaneously with the rise in prices. If he does, he is going against the advice of Mr. Wolstencroft, the managing director of "Today", whose evidence I have here. It is unbelievable that anyone even slightly informed on this would have acted in such a way.
Then, having courted the trouble, there was the superimposition upon this of a good will campaign. Added to the top of this confusion there was that mass of advertising which took us from calamity to farce—these incongruous "You lucky people" type of advertisements coinciding exactly with the height of the chaos. The chaos of the first week was inevitable and was the straight result of this slick and futile combination of the price rise and the two-tier system.
In the first week, what was bound to happen was that all the direct mail advertising firms would take advantage of the last few days of the old system to swamp the market with cheaper letters, and that is what happened. Also, September is always a busy month for the second-tier type of postage. Added to this is the fact that the bigger weights in the new charges meant that some other things came in cheaper; so, on the following Monday, a fresh flood came in on top.
But added to this was the most important thing of all, the new and complete segregation of the second post, which had never happened before, whatever has been said. This turned the second-class stream into an uncontrolled deluge in those first days. The sum of all these factors made a result entirely predictable. Nothing else could have happened. Therefore, in spite of the advertisements which talked about two reliable systems, they could have been better employed several weeks ahead preparing advertisements saying, "We are sorry, the services are bound to be bad for the next month". This would have been a good deal more believable. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to deal with this at some length and say, with his hand on his heart, that he believes this to have been right, even now.
My next complaint is that, the trouble having started and having disrupted business completely and social life a good deal as well, nothing was done about it for so long. In other words, why was the reaction at such a snail's pace? In an Answer to a Question of mine, the right hon. Gentleman told me that, whereas, in the past, 75 per cent. of all London mail was delivered by first post, the present figure was 55 per cent. Surely, with his knowledge of business he must know what this means—whatever hon. Gentlemen opposite say—for the slowing-down of the flow of industry. If we go on like this, the Post Office will vie with the situation on our roads as the greatest invisible restriction on commerce.
First, would he tell me whether it is still a fact that the total of all letters delivered by first London post is now still only 55 per cent., compared with the previous figure of 75 per cent.? I should like to ask why this is so, because that has not been made clear so far in the debate.
The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) put a Question to the Postmaster-General in which he asked whether he would "state the changes in organisation, mechanisation and personnel caused in his Department by the two-tier postage system".
The reply was:
The main change has been the increase in the amount of mail which can be deferred so as to reduce our peak working problems. This is a matter of degree; there is no fundamental change in the system of operation, the machinery used or the conditions of employment of the staff."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th October, 1968; Vol. 770, c. 161.]
That is quite untrue. There is an enormous and a fundamental change. In the first two weeks of the new two-tier system, the break in the total was working up to 30 per cent. first-class mail and 70 per cent. second-class mail, but it was completely segregated at that moment, whatever changes have been made since. The first-class mail was only 30 per cent. Before the two-tier system, 60 per cent. went by first-class mail but, so flexible was the old system, 60 per cent. of the second-class mail in those days had first-class treatment.
If any hon. Member wishes to check that, he will find the information in the Report of the Select Committee. About


80 per cent. of the total was going through the first-class mail service. The second-class mail did not have a guarantee or an assurance of that treatment but, because of the flexibility of the system, that was the result. Although the Postmaster-General tells us that the new system will introduce more flexibility, in fact it introduces exactly the opposite.
We have been promised that under the new system the second-tier mail will go through a day later than the first-tier mail, but in many places it is going through not one day later but one day and one post later. Instead of going through on the first post in the morning, it is being left to a huge second post. Surely it cannot be beyond the wit of man to put that right.
Bearing in mind the Postmaster-General's statement that there has been no fundamental change, may I ask whether he has visited a few post offices and seen the physical changes which they have had to make in the set-up of their offices to cope with the differences in proportion in each of the mails. The system is totally different in every respect—fundamentally different.
In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker), the Postmaster-General wrote,
I should also explain that for many years we have deferred postcards and 3d. printed papers whenever this has been necessary to ensure the prompt handling of letters sent at the fully paid rate.
This was exactly true of the old system. They dealt with the second-tier system as long as they could and until it interfered with the reliability of the first-tier mail. In many post offices the mail was not segregated at all until 4 p.m. and then they started segregating to safeguard the first-tier system. That flexibility has been lost, and that is why we have a far smaller proportion of the mail in the first-class post.
If any hon. Member still doubts that that is true, I suggest that he should read the directive which the Postmaster-General sent out on 25th October to post offices stating that locally posted second-class mail could be included in the first-class delivery on the following day. That proves exactly what has occurred. But it took six weeks for him to react to the situation and to realise that the first post was only a fraction of what could be handled effectively. This was done at

long last, and it was the right thing to do but of course it put paid to all the statements by the Postmaster-General, about which we have heard so often today, that it was deferred only when necessary to enable the prompt handling of the first-class post to take place. This infuriates the public. [Interruption.] The public are being proved right and the Postmaster-General wrong. This is happening time and again.
The right hon. Gentleman has done himself great harm. While he kept on saying that certain things were happening, the public knew that they were not. People know their local postman. He is part of the community, not some strange official who comes into their midst. The postman said, "We are keeping letters back in a way we never did before." People believe their local postman. When they complained, the same old record was played about there being no unnecessary delay. They could not believe the right hon. Gentleman because what he was saying was untrue in relation to what they could see happening all around them.
Then we came to the next stage, when the right hon. Gentleman said, "This does not happen and there is no delay—of course, mistakes will occur sometimes in a big organisation—unless the staff disobey orders." The staff, of course, were carrying out the system that the right hon. Gentleman had set up—an entirely rigid system which involved delay. They obeyed the right hon. Gentleman, and that is why we got a ridiculous situation throughout the country. People were doing things they knew to be mad, but they were acting on his instructions. Then came the right hon. Gentleman's letter.
We are speaking of a system which might have been applicable to some big towns, but which was too rigid for most of the countryside. The accompanying publicity all along was utterly out of tune with what was occurring. One piece of publicity said:
This new letter service will allow greater flexibility in handling the mail.
Flexibility was the one thing that it lacked.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have complained about the use of the word "blackmail", but we must consider why such words have been used. People are finding that if they use the 4d. post, their letters


arrive later every day; and the whole thing becomes less believable. So they move into the 5d. post, and nobody is surprised when the number of people using the dearer post gets larger daily.
I advise the right hon. Gentleman not to appear to get too much comfort from the figures which, in good faith, he puts to us because this is the biggest crisis of confidence the Post Office has had with the public. Rightly in my view, wrongly in his, people feel deceived. It is doubly important that the right hon. Gentleman should not over-use figures which are out of keeping with people's experience.
I put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the other day and I did not believe the Answer he gave me, not because he is a dishonest man but because it could not be true. I asked him:
…what percentage of mail dispatched by second-class letter service achieved the planned time of delivery in the weeks ended 21st September, 28th September, 5th October and 12th October, respectively…".
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
Our service observations are designed to give statistically reliable results for periods of a month; for the four week period in question 93 per cent. of second-class letters and 94 per cent. of first-class letters were delivered as planned".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd October, 1968; Vol. 770, c. 311.]
Anybody who went to a post office in the first dreadful week of the new system knows that 30 per cent. were not delivered to plan. Things were slightly better in the second week and better still in the third. I showed the right hon. Gentleman's reply, in a puzzled state, to Post Office workers. They commented, "There must be some mistake". Obviously there is. It is simply untrue.
Such phrases as, "We have the best postal service in the world" should not be used. That might have been true a few weeks ago, but it has not been true for the last seven weeks. This makes people disbelieve everything that is said by the right hon. Gentleman and their only comment is, "God help the Ethiopians".
Whatever the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the latest figures tell him, there is still a lot wrong. I received some figures today from the C.B.I., one set relating to Worcester. They absolutely reject the right hon. Gentleman's figures. Another lot from Manchester were utterly wrong. They showed that 50 per cent.

of the first class mail, on a very big sample, were a day late and on the second class, another 50 per cent. more than a day late. Whatever else can be said, this is fantastically patchy.
Whatever the situation is now, clearly there are some bad patches. Rather than purr away over the doubtful general figures, I urge the Postmaster-General to get out into the country and see what is happening in the really bad areas. I do not want to make a nasty political point out of this, but for the good name of the Post Office, we have to get this business of the advertising firm right. Here we have a bad advertising campaign with the whole country against it, and halfway through it a company which has been advising the Post Office for 14 years was ostentatiously and abruptly sacked. That can only apparently point to one thing. We want it very carefully cleared up, for the sake of the good name of the Post Office.
We shall be debating the Post Office Corporation Bill. The parables of the London telephone directories and the two-tier system will certainly increase our wariness on the whole question of monopoly. These two events showed up two of the most serious faults of monopoly. One is the lack of sensitivity to public feeling, and the other the slowness of reactions. It should be realised that the out standing difference in a person's attitude to the two-tier system as opposed to the former system is that now he or she minds about the system. Who cared whether one's bills got there in time or whether an advertisement reached one in time? One did not even look to see how long it had taken.
Now each time one is taking a conscious decision and deciding whether a person is a 4d. or a 5d. friend. This is a very different thing. One minds very much if it takes five days instead of two. Therefore, these complaints from people need to be taken very seriously because people are very sincerely upset about it. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to recognise that fact in his attitude to the public and to Parliament. People are serious about this, and feel let down. It is because of that that a lot of intelligent people still believe that this system cannot possibly work.
I do not believe that. I believe that it can work if it is adjusted, and if we


react to the sort of things about which I have been talking. In addressing people he must realise that. If he does not accept this, I advise him to get out into the country, spend a few hours with a lot of head postmasters and he will come back a much humbler man.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. Stonehouse: When I heard that the Opposition had chosen the whole of today's debate on the Gracious Speech to debate the Post Office I expected that firework right would be transferred from 5th November to 4th November. What we have had today has been a damp squib. The debate has petered out. The Opposition points are completely inadequate.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. When I came into the House two hours ago I heard the right hon. Gentleman making a speech. I did not hear him ask permission to make a speech now.

Mr. Speaker: I should have asked the right hon. Gentleman. He must ask permission of the House.

Mr. Stonehouse: I apologise. I did indicate at the close of my original speech—

Mr. Speaker: That is not the issue. The right hon. Gentleman speaks only with the leave of the House.

Mr. Stonehouse: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for inadvertently failing to ask permission of the House to speak again. May I please have the permission of the House to speak again?
The hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) has just referred to the Select Committee Report, but I believe that he failed to read that, because he will recall what the Committee said. It was that the proposal for a two-tier system was advisable because it was not based on the possibility of earning more revenue but on the more rational and attractive choice it would give to customers.
It went on to say, in paragraph 74:
75 per cent. of both business and residential users, interviewed as part of the survey of attitudes of postal users commissioned by the Post Office, approved in principle the 'two-tier' service.

It said, in paragraph 75:
Your Committee also believe that a 'two-tier' system would also introduce a welcome flexibility into the postal tariff structure.
Furthermore, whereas the hon. Member said that he thought that a two-tier system could not be associated with tariff increases, the Select Committee said, in paragraph 76:
Your Committee welcome the study the Post Office has made of the two-tier tariff structure for letters. They regret that the opportunity was not taken to incorporate the system into the 1966 Tariff Revision.
The Government took note of this point and took the opportunity when a tariff increase was required to bring in the two-tier system.

Mr. Bryan: I quote the present Managing Director of Postal Services, in Appendix 27:
The bulk of the opposition to a two-tier service came from those who felt it was equivalent to a choice of either paying more for the present level of service or receiving a slower service. (This would be so if a two-tier service were introduced without the lower tier being priced initially cheaper than the present letter mail, and this opposition could then be expected to swell.)
This it has done.

Mr. Stonehouse: I was referring to the Report of the Select Committee, which heard a great deal of evidence. I quoted its considered view after the Committee had heard all the representations made to it.
We had an interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley). He quite rightly asked why the instructions were changed during the six or seven weeks of the two-tier system. I explained before the two-tier system came into operation that we would have to keep its operation under continuous review. It was quite obvious that this dramatic change in the way in which the Post Office had done its business would have to be subject to review and we could not get the operation absolutely right at the beginning. That is why certain instructions have had to be changed as we went along.
The hon. Member also asked about an order for equipment related to requirements in 1970–71 onwards. The particular equipment to which he referred is for a machine which will work on new 5d. pieces. It is not determined


what will be the value of stamps supplied for those new 5d. pieces; that decision has not yet been made. The hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden) suggested that we should have "open weeks". That is a very sensible idea. I shall have it considered by my advisers and see when we can implement the proposals.
We have had a very interesting debate about the effects of the two-tier system. I recognise from my mailbag of the last seven or eight weeks that there have been a considerable number of complaints about the operation of the system. There is no shadow of doubt about that. I should like to analyse why there have been so many complaints. In my opening speech this afternoon I acknowledged that the presentation by the Post Office of the new two-tier system was less than perfect. We made a mistake in a particular advertisement and I have fully acknowledged my personal responsibility for that. Something was done about this and done about it quickly, as the House well knows.
The second reason why there have been a number of complaints is that the Post Office scheduling of the first and second-class mails, particularly the second-class mails, was not perfect at the beginning of the scheme. I follow the very valid point which was made by the hon. Member for Cheadle, but I suggest that not only was this to be expected but that I acknowledged that this would be the position even before two-tier came into operation. It was impossible to say exactly what split there would be between the first and second-class mails and the instructions could not be perfectly right for a given split before it was known what the split was.

Sir Robert Cary: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is now proving that this was a complete failure of rehearsal on his part with the staffs concerned in this operation?

Mr. Stonehouse: This was a very complicated operation. We have always acknowledged that it would not be possible to get the two-tier system right in terms of scheduling, particularly in terms of first and second-class mail, at the very beginning, but it was absolutely essential

that we gave what we promised the customers they would have, namely, priority for first-class mail. That is the promise we gave at the outset. We have adjusted the schedules from time to time since 16th September, maintaining the priority of the first-class mails, but delivering, as I promised would be done, second-class mails as soon as possible after the priority had been given to first-class mails.
The third reason why there have been a certain number of complaints is that people have been scrutinising their mail more closely than they ever were before. With the large volume of mail that we have to deal with, it is only to be expected, even with a 1 per cent. failure rate, that the volume of complaints can be extremely large. As my hon. Friends the Members for Kemptown and Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) said, we are dealing with 35 million envelopes a day. A 1 per cent. failure rate would amount to 350,000 complaints a day, or 100 million complaints in a year. It is quite obvious that if there is a great deal of publicity about the way the Post Office is doing its business a large number of complaints which are justified can be stimulated as a result of that.

Mr. John Page: Mr. John Page (Harrow, West) rose—

Mr. Stonehouse: Is there another industry—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Speaker: It is for the right hon. Gentleman to decide whether he gives way. Mr. Stonehouse.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is there another industry in Britain which can claim a mere 1 per cent. failure rate? Can it be claimed that new cars are 99 per cent. perfect, that newspapers are 99 per cent. accurate, that building projects are completed 99 per cent. fault free, that trains and aircraft arrive 99 per cent. on time? I mention these examples not to engage in the current knocking game of the Opposition, denigrating everything that we in Britain can achieve, but to get the situation that the Post Office is in into perspective. The 1 per cent. failure rate, which we acknowledge, is a very low percentage of failure indeed.
Another reason people complain is that some of their mail is arriving later than it did before because the poster is using


second-class mail and is putting a lower priority on it than the addressee would like. The hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) touched a little on this point. This complaint should be addressed to the poster and not to the Post Office.
The fourth reason for a large number of complaints—I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East for referring to this—is that a very large number of business firms are meter-posting their mail with mis-dates on it.
I have a number of examples here: for instance, 12,000 items between 10th and 20th October, from leading firms in the City, with a whole number of irregularities, mail sometimes being posted with the date on the envelope six or seven days before the actual date of posting. There are these irregularities, and the failure rate on the part of some of these business firms in posting their mail is far greater than the 1 per cent. failure rate for which the Post Office itself may be responsible.
I have here a whole bundle of irregularities committed by business firms which then complain because their mail appears to be delivered late. Last Friday, for example, in Central London, 2,700 items were handed in with Thursday's date, 31st October, on the envelopes. I could cite many other examples.
In the past, so as not to hold up this mail, the Post Office has sent it through on its way. When it arrived at the other end, the addressee, looking at the date put on the envelope by the meter poster, would blame the Post Office for the delay, whereas it was not the fault of the G.P.O. at all. I shall now have to consider what action we must take in dealing with these irregularities to which I have referred and the misleading dates which are put on a lot of mail by meter posters.

Mr. Barber: Mr. Barber rose—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The debate has proceeded quietly so far. It should end in the same way.

Mr. Barber: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be blaming the public for a lot of what has gone wrong. Will he answer this question? He is planning for

20 million letters a day to go by the 4d. post, most of which had 4d. on them before. Will these 20 million letters have a better or a worse service than before?

Mr. Stonehouse: Obviously, the right hon. Gentleman has not considered what the two-tier system was all about. I have recognised that two-tier was associated with a price increase. We do not pretend that the 4d. envelope is receiving the same service as it had before two-tier came in. What we say is that we shall give reliable next-day delivery to 5d. mail. But the 4d. mail will be subject to second-class treatment so that the 5d. mail may be given the priority for which the customer is willing to pay an extra Id. It is obvious that the 20 million envelopes of second-class mail which we receive every day will not have the same treatment as the first-class mail will receive.

Mr. John Page: Mr. John Page rose—

Mr. Stonehouse: We should judge the performance of the Post Office not against the other industries to which I have referred which have a much higher failure rate than the Post Office; nor should we judge the Post Office against the performance of other postal administrations, although, as I showed earlier in the debate, other postal administrations charge more than the Post Office, give a worse service than the Post Office, but still make a loss, sometimes a huge loss, whereas we make a profit. The comparison of the operations and success of two-tier must be made against the objectives which the Post Office set out, the target which we established long before two-tier came into operation.
The first objective was to reduce the load for fully-paid mails from 60 per cent. of all mail to about 32 per cent. Second, to achieve a 95 per cent. delivery of first-class mails by day B, the day after posting. This is, in effect, a 100 per cent. target, as 5 per cent. of all mails cannot physically be delivered the next day. Third, to achieve a 90 per cent. delivery of second-class mails by day C, two days after posting. Fourth, to complete first deliveries in town by 9.30 a.m., and maintain two deliveries in towns.
Those were the essential objectives of the two-tier system. What has been our performance? First, despite the boycott


campaign and "Make a ghost of the first-class post", we have now achieved the split in mails between first- and second-class that we planned for. Beginning in the first week at 25 per cent. first-class, the percentage in week six, the week ending 27th October, was 32 per cent. Therefore, we have achieved that objective.
Second, we have achieved a 94 per cent. delivery next day of first-class mails with a 5d. stamp within six or seven weeks of the beginning of two-tier, a really remarkable achievement. We have almost reached the target we set.
I do not ask the House to accept merely the Post Office report on this—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very difficult for a right hon. Member to address the House against a background of sustained conversation.

Mr. Stonehouse: I do not ask the House to accept the Post Office figures, but to look at the Sunday Times of 21st October, which said:
An independent check of the customers on the percentage of next day delivery of first-class mail came up with a 94 per cent. success rate. This is the same as the percentage given by the Postmaster General to the Commons on Thursday.
The Economist, quoting the C.B.I. survey, said that the survey showed a first-class delivery by next day of 97 per cent. All the figures of these independent surveys confirm that the Post Office is nearly achieving, if not exceeding, its objective on first-class deliveries the next day.
Third, according to the Post Office survey, we have achieved a 93 per cent. second-class delivery by day C, which is two days after posting. The Sunday Times said:
Our check of 4d. mail showed a 95 per cent. rate for delivery within 48 hours, higher than the 93 per cent. given by the P.M.G. on Thursday.
The Economist/C.B.I. Report showed 94 per cent.
Fourth, we are maintaining delivery by the time of 9.30 that we said, and we are maintaining two deliveries a day.
The essential point is what our main customers, the general rank and file customers, think of our service [Laughter.] I have already acknowledged that because

of the large volume of mail with which we deal a very low percentage rate can give rise to a large volume of complaints. But what are our customers saying about the Post Office? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Gentlemen had read the Sunday Times of 21st October they would have seen that five companies were quoted. It said:
The biggest customers of the Post Office are happy. Ford, for example, who post nearly 3 million envelopes a week, have had very few complaints about delays.

An Hon. Member: Read the News of the World.

Mr. Stonehouse: The report continues:
Barclays Bank say that they have had only isolated complaints. Carreras think the service is improving. Shell and B.P., who send all their mail by first-class service, think it is operating reasonably well, and I.C.I. have no grumbles.
That is an illustration of what some leading companies are saying about two-tier.
Even the smaller companies, when they are asked for objective reports, are giving two-tier a good report. Take the Harrow Observer of 18th October. It said:
Local firms and offices are reporting little or no delays caused by the new two-tier postal system.

Mr. John Page: Mr. John Page rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. John Page. A point of order.

Mr. Page: Mr. Speaker, I was unable to hear what the Postmaster-General said about the Harrow Observer. I wonder whether he could repeat it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was not helping himself to hear.

Mr. Stonehouse: Before the two-tier system came in I said that I would keep the operation under continuous review—

Mr. David Webster: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Postmaster-General's speech just now was inaudible in this part of the House. I should be grateful if he could repeat the last part.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a truism to say that if the House is quiet it has a better chance to hear.

Mr. Stonehouse: The Harrow Observer. on 18th October, said:
Local firms and offices are reporting little or no delays caused by the new two-tier postal system.

Mr. John Page: Mr. John Page rose—

Mr. Stonehouse: Before the two-tier system came in I said that I would keep the operation under continuous review. I also said that I would take action to prevent restrictive practices creeping into the way we do our business. I report now to the House on what I have done in these weeks.
At the beginning we gave full priority to first-class mail. The locally posted second-class mail was not then included in first deliveries for next day. I have now given instructions that first deliveries can be filled up with second-class mail when this can be done without prejudice to first-class mail or the time of completion. I am very glad to say that I have had the full co-operation of the union in working out this change.
On the second point, following discussions with the union, which have been completed only today, I am glad to be able to tell the House that commencing next week second-class matter will be included in first deliveries in London sub-districts provided that deliveries are not so loaded with second-class matter that the scheduled finishing times would be jeopardised and the priority of first-class mails affected. This does away with a 20-years-old rule that could have embarrassed the operation of the two-tier system.
From the new year I shall be introducing a new colour for the 4d. stamp.

[HON. MEMBERS: "What colour?"] I am sure that the House will be glad to know that the colour will be red.

I was very impressed with the points on the Gracious Speech made last week by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder), who asked about the delivery of second-class mails to and from Ulster. I am sure that he will be glad to know that, although these mails have been subject to delay because of the sea journey, I have decided now that some second-class mails will be included on air routes. Although this will cost an extra £70,000 a year, I think that it is worth doing because it will give the customers in Northern Ireland the sort of service—that is, 90 per cent. delivery by day C—that they should have.

I am asking one of the postal regional directors to conduct a full survey into the operation of the two-tier system and to report in six months' time, and I will arrange for the report to be made public in view of the public interest in it.

We have heard, in the terms of the Amendment, that the two-tier system has caused chaos, muddle and confusion. There has been ample demonstration that there was no chaos, no muddle and no confusion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I ask the Opposition, if they want not to make the Post Office a political football, to take the opportunity now of withdrawing their ill-conceived Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 302.

Division No. 2.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bossom, Sir Clive
Clegg, Walter


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Cooke, Robert


Astor, John
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Brewis, John
Cordle, John


Awdry, Daniel
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Corfield, F. V.


Baker, Kenneth (Aoton)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Costain, A. P.


Bainiel, Lord
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Crouch, David


Batsford, Brian
Bryan, Paul
Crowder, F. P.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Cunningham, Sir Knox


Bell, Ronald
Buck, Anthony (Colchester)
Currie, G. B. H.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Bullus, Sir Eric
Dalkeith, Earl of


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Burden, F. A.
Dance, James


Bessell, Peter
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Biffen, John
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)


Biggs-Davison, John
Carlisle, Mark
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Black, Sir Cyril
Cary, Sir Robert
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Blaker, Peter
Channon, H. P. G.
Doughty, Charles


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec


Body, Richard
Clark, Henry
Drayson, C. B.




Eden, Sir John
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Pym, Francis


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kershaw, Anthony
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Emery, Peter
Kimball, Marcus
Ramsden, Rt. Hn, James


Errington, Sir Eric
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Eyre, Reginald
Kirk, Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Farr, John
Kitson, Timothy
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Fisher, Nigel
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Fortescue, Tim
Lane, David
Ridsdale, Julian


Foster, Sir John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Calbraith, Hn. T. G.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Gibson-Watt, David
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Royle, Anthony


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Longden, Gilbert
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Loveys, W. H.
Scott, Nicholas


Glover, Sir Douglas
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Scott-Hopkins, James


Glyn, Sir Richard
MacArthur, Ian
Sharples, Richard


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; ' Whitby)


Goodhart, Philip
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Silvester, Frederick


Cower, Raymond
McMaster, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Sinclair, Sir George


Grant, Anthony
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Maddan, Martin
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maginnis, John E.
Speed, Keith


Grieve, Percy
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Stainton, Keith


Grimond, Rt- Hn. J.
Marten, Neil
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Gurden, Harold
Maude, Angus
Stoddart, Anthony


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mawby, Ray
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tapsell, Peter


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Miscampbell, Norman
Teeling, Sir William


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Temple, John M.


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Monro, Hector
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Hastings, Stephen
Montgomery, Fergus
Tilney, John


Hawkins, Paul
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hay, John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Vickers, Dame Joan


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Waddington, David


Heseltine, Michael
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Higgins, Terence L.
Neave, Airey
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hiley, Joseph
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wall, Patrick


Hill, J. E. B.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Walters, Dennis


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nott, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Weatherill, Bernard


Holland, Philip
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Webster, David


Hooson, Emlyn
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hordern, Peter
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hornby, Richard
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hunt, John
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Peel, John
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Iremonger, T. L.
Percival, Ian
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Peyton, John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Worsley, Marcus


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pink, R. Bonner
Wylie, N. R.


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pounder, Rafton



Jopling, Michael
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Prior, J. M. L.
Mr. Jasper More.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Blackburn, F.
Carmichael, Neil


Alldritt, Walter
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Allen, Scholefield
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Anderson, Donald
Booth, Albert
Chapman, Donald


Archer, Peter
Boston, Terence
Coe, Denis


Armstrong, Ernest
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Coleman, Donald


Ashley, Jack
Boyden, James
Concannon, J. D.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Bradley, Tom
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Crawshaw, Richard


Barnes, Michael
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Cronin, John


Barnett, Joel
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Baxter, William
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Beaney, Alan
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice


Bence, Cyril
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dalyell, Tam


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Buchan, Norman
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)


Bidwell, Sydney
Buchanan, Richard (Ggow, Sp'burn)
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)


Binns, John
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Davies, G. Eifed (Rhondda, E.)


Bishop, E. S.
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)







Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pentland, Norman


Delargy, Hugh
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Perry, Ernest C. (Battersea, S.)


Dell, Edmund
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Dempsey, James
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Dewar, Donald
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Price, Christpher (Perry Barr)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Dickens, James
Judd, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)


Dobson, Ray
Kelley, Richard
Probert, Arthur


Doig, Peter
Kenyon, Clifford
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Dunn, James A.
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Randall, Harry


Dunnett, Jack
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Rankin, John


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rees, Merlyn


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lawson, George
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Eadie, Alec
Leadbitter, Ted
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Edelman, Maurice
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Richard, Ivor


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lee, John (Reading)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Ellis, John
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


English, Michael
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Ennals, David
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roebuck, Roy


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lomas, Kenneth
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Faulds, Andrew
Loughlin, Charles
Rose, Paul


Finch, Harold
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rowlands, E.


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Ryan, John


Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
MacColl, James
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacDermot, Niall
Sheldon, Robert


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Macdonald, A. H.
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Fowler, Gerry
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton. N. E.)


Freeson, Reginald
Mackie, John
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackintosh, John P.
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Gardner, Tony
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Silverman, Julius


Garrett, W. E.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Skeffington, Arthur


Ginsburg, David
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Small, William


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Snow, Julian


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Spriggs, Leslie


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Gregory, Arnold
Manuel, Archie
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mapp, Charles
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Marks, Kenneth
Summerskil, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marquand, David
Swain, Thomas


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Swingler, Stephen


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Taverne, Dick


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Maxwell, Robert
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mayhew, Christopher
Thornton, Ernest


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Tinn, James


Hamling, William
Mendelson, John
Tomney, Frank


Hannan, William
Mikardo, Ian
Urwin, T. W.


Harper, Joseph
Milkan, Bruce
Varley, Eric G.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wainwright, Edwin (Deame Valley)


Hart, RT. Hn. Judith
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Haseldine, Norman
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hattersley, Roy
Molloy, William
Wallace, George


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Moonman, Eric
Watkins, David (Consett)


Heffer, Eric S.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Weitzman, David


Hilton, W. S.
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Wellbeloved, James


Hobden, Dennis
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wells, William (Walsalf, N.)


Hooley, Frank
Murray, Albert
Whitaker, Ben


Horner, John
Neal, Harold
Whitlock, William


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Newens Stan
Wilkins, W. A.


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Noel-Barker, Francis (Swindon)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Norwood, Christopher
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oakes, Cordon
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Howie, W.
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Hoy, James
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Huckfield, Leslie
Orbach, Maurice
Wiliams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oswald, Thomas
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Padley, Walter
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Winnick, David


Hunter, Adam
Paget, R. T.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Hynd, John
Palmer, Arthur
Woof, Robert


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Wyatt, Woodrow


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp;)
Parker, John (Dagenham)



Jackson, Peter M. (High Pack)
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Janner, Sir Barnett
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Mr. Neil McBride and


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurence
Mr. Charles R. Morris.

Main Question again proposed.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — INLAND POST

10.12 p.m.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Inland Post Regulations 1968 (S.I., 1968, No. 1253), a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th August, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled.
I am aware that the 50 regulations and seven Schedules which comprise the document before us contain quite a number of proposals which are wholly innocuous and, indeed, involve simply a re-enactment of pre-existing regulations. On the other hand, the admirably clear Explanatory Note at the back of the Statutory Instrument—the only agreeable feature of it—makes it clear that this bundle of regulations contains a substantial number of proposals which are new, highly controversial, and, in my view, pernicious.
We cannot amend a Statutory Instrument. The only course open to those of us who feel that these proposals are ill-judged, inappropriate and wrong is to move to annul the whole body of Regulations, it being clearly understood that it is open to the Government, if the House accepts the Motion, to reintroduce those parts of the Regulations which are a repetition of pre-existing ones.
If I may say so in fairness to him, the Postmaster-General has shown a considerable willingness to reverse many of the sillier actions of his predecessors. I hope, therefore, that he will listen to the argument on these Regulations with the same open-minded approach that he has shown, for example, in respect of the opposition to the extraordinary idea of one of his predecessors that the London telephone directory should be divided into 36 separate parts.
The House must appreciate that although the right hon. Gentleman now bears technical responsibility for them, these Regulations are not regulations for which he was in any ordinary sense of the term responsible. They were plainly the work of his two predecessors, and connoisseurs of the Minister of Technology will immediately appreciate that the silly-clever undergraduate gimmickry of much of them is the clearest possible indication that the Minister of Tech-
If hon. Members will study the regulation, they will see that the right to with-

hold applies not only to delivery, but to nology had a hand in them. I hope, therefore, that in words which are not wholly unfamiliar to the Minister of Technology the House will appreciate it if the Postmaster-General will take the view, that Her Majesty's mails are too important a matter to be left to the Minister of Technology.
The introduction of these regulations, as the previous debate made clear, has undoubtedly done an enormous amount of harm to the reputation and morale of the Post Office, and no one should be more aware of that than the right hon. Gentleman. It has also done a great deal of harm to the economy.
I want to go straight to what seems to me plainly the worst of these regulations. It is Regulation 17, which is short and pithy:
Any second-class letter or printed packet may be withheld from despatch or delivery until any subsequent despatch of delivery.
This is, first of all, wholly contrary to the honourable tradition of the Post Office, the tradition that the mails get through as quickly as possible, the tradition of the mail trains racing through the night, the tradition of the postman trudging his way through the snow to make sure that the mail gets through to the most isolated cottage.
The seriousness of this regulation is that the word "withheld" has a nasty implication. It does not merely mean not using the fullest speed or expedition. It means deliberately holding back, and one wants to know, and one wants to get from the right hon. Gentleman, why he is the first Postmaster-General for 300 years to come forward with a proposal for the deliberate holding back of Her Majesty's mails.
A reason was put with characteristic vigour by a trade union leader, Mr. Fitzgerald, the General Secretary of the National Guild of Telephonists, who called it penny blackmail by holding up Her Majesty's mails. Without necessarily accepting that peculiar phraseology, I think that hon. Members who heard the earlier debate will appreciate that the reason for this deliberate holding back is to try to induce or compel the ordinary citizen to use the 5d. rate.
If hon. Members will study the regulation, they will see that the right to with-


hold applies not only to delivery, but to despatch. Why is it desired to have a power to withhold letters even from despatch, in other words, to sit on them and not send them forward?
The Government are clearly in a position which they would condemn with great vehemence if any private company—above all, a monopoly company—adopted it. If a private company which held a monopoly deliberately lowered the quality of its service without any reduction in price so as to compel its customers to use a more expensive service, not only would Ministers denounce them, they would haul them either in front of the Restrictive Practices Court or the Central Criminal Court on a charge of conspiracy to extort money.
The same must apply to a great public service protected by monopoly powers which is clearly and deliberately worsening its service, and taking power so to do, to compel people to buy its more expensive service. That is the gravamen of the charge against these Regulations.
The House will have noticed the words that I have read out, "until any subsequent dispatch or delivery." There is no time limit. It is not limited to a delay of two or three weeks. It is absolutely indefinite. That is an enormous power to take, and one which surely demands an explanation. It is a power to delay to the Greek Kalends, or, to use a more modern idiom, until the occasion when the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity makes a speech at a by-election which does not contain a worthless pledge. I see that the right hon. Lady has come into the Chamber. Her sense of timing is, as always, admirable.
I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman, who is to make his third speech of the day in reply—an example of the loneliness of the long-distance runner—why he wants to take this power. He has told us that he does not wish deliberately to hold up mail; indeed, in the closing moments of his speech in the previous debate he told us that he would take action to secure the delivery of second-class mail, at any rate in London, by the first post. Why, then, is he seeking from Parliament power indefinitely and with no limit whatever to delay Her Majesty's mail—both its dispatch and its delivery?

These Regulations have caused confusion and damage to the economy of the Post Office, as we heard in the earlier debate. Their purpose is to improve the revenues of the Post Office—a rather curious purpose in respect of the letter mail, which are one of the Post Office's profitable activities. I wonder how far even that object has been achieved. If the Post Office withholds one letter and send on another, under these Regulations, there has to be a separate sorting activity. The first class has to be sorted from the second.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how this is done? Will he also tell us how much of the extra overtime worked by the Post Office during recent weeks has been directly related to this?—because this is an extra operation over and above all the others that the Post Office has to undertake.
Perhaps he will explain how any saving is achieved by the sort of operation affecting mail from the Shetland Islands that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) described vividly the other day, as reported in the Press. According to the right hon. Gentleman, prior to these forms all mail—first and second-class—which was going to Aberdeen, went by air. First-class mail so continues to do, but second-class mail is taken by air from Shetland to Orkney, put in a van and driven across Orkney, put on a boat at the other side of Orkney and taken to Scrabster, in Caithness; then put on a train which takes it to Perth and not to Aberdeen, and then returns northward from Perth to Aberdeen. This will no doubt serve the purpose of delay most effectively.
But I should like to know what economy is achieved in a labour intensive service by this kind of thing. There are innumerable examples of the labour cost in delay of these operations. There is the example which my right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip gave of solemnly collecting second-class mail from a village in Cumberland, taking it 25 miles to Carlisle and then bringing it back. This again effectively withholds, but also seems to be lacking in value as an economy.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he had stopped some of the sillier operations, like the Lincolnshire postman re-posting, but I know of a number of


cases in my own constituency of second-class mail taking three or four days to move within the London area. In one case, a letter took four days from Epsom to Roehampton, a distance of about nine miles, or an average speed of 2¼ miles a day. Apart from the inconvenience of that to the public, does that save labour? Someone presumably was looking after that letter for four days, when he could simply have delivered it the next day and got rid of it. There is also the: curious, and in some way sinister, devaluation of the post mark. Many hon. Members have heard from their constituents of cases of a double postmark on a letter. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) gave me an interesting example just before the debate, of a letter proceeding from Manchester Square, W.1, to Mill Hill, which received one post mark on 24th October at the London W. Post Office and another two days later at the London S.E.1 Post Office, before finally reaching Mill Hill three days after that. These cases are too frequent and too many are now arising to be due to the difficulties which, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, one would expect in a major service. They have been multiplied by these regulations. They are a direct and logical consequence of the regulations. They should have been foreseen, they were not foreseen, and this is what had done the damage to the postal service.
Another of these regulations has an effect to which little publicity has been given, and that is the treatment of postcards. All the advertisements, those which the right hon. Gentleman approved and those which he did not, suggest that the citizen is given a choice. The right hon. Gentleman and the House will recall what has happened in respect to the choice over postcards. Until 16th September, they went for 3d. From then on, the price was raised to 4d., a 33⅓ per cent. increase, for an inferior service, or a 66⅔ per cent. increase to 5d. for more or less the same service as before. This is an enormous increase when everyone else is being asked to exercise price restraint.
This is made none the better by reason of the fact that the postcard is the type of communication which the old, the poor and the children use in particular.

When the right hon. Gentleman talks of price increases, is he really saying that the Post Office alone in this country is entitled to a 66⅔ per cent. increase for the same service?
I should like to ask two questions arising equally on these Regulations. First how are they being applied to mail for the Armed Forces, sent to British Forces Post Offices? It has always been the tradition that the mail is sent to our forces abroad with the utmost speed, for reasons of morale as well as common humanity, since the people concerned are, by the nature of their duties, often separated from their families. If a second-class letter is sent to somebody addressed "care of B.F.P.O.", will the right hon. Gentleman exercise his power to delay it? If he intends to do so, has he consulted the Secretary of State for Defence about the effect on the forces?
Perhaps also he will tell us what is to happen to the elaborate price structure contained in these Regulations when the currency is decimalised. That is only two-and-a-half years ahead. In a very courteous letter to me, the right hon. Gentleman admitted that when that occurs the structure of charging in the Post Office will have to be reconsidered. Are we to go through all this elaborate and damaging process only for a short time? If he were by some unhappy chance still to be in that office at that time—it is only two-and-a-half years ahead—would it be his intention to have another series of charges imposed? The new decimal currency will be completely inappropriate to Post Office charges of this kind, as the right hon. Gentleman admits.
One other regulation calls for some comment—that which provides that the Postmaster-General may fix a higher rate even than these, though not exceeding 7d. for first-class or 6d. for second-class mail, for minimum weight letters which do not conform to the conditions of size, shape and material of a preferred letter. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to do that without any reference to Parliament. He will be able to lay down what he means by the kind of letter for which he will make a further additional charge. Is he contemplating making yet another increase in postal charges in respect of that category of correspondence without necessarily referring to Parliament at all? The House


and the public are entitled to be told a little about that.
In opening the debate I acquitted the right hon. Gentleman of responsibility for this shambles which has been created in the Post Office. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) said so well earlier, these Regulations and the way in which they were introduced have done a good deal of damage to the Post Office and to the country. No one expects the right hon. Gentleman to run his Department at a loss and to let it become the same sort of incubus on the taxpayer as the railways have become. But surely he must realise that these Regulations have got off to a hopeless start. Is not the best thing, in his interests and the interests of his Department and of the country, for him to take them back? He can console himself with the thought that the shambles is more that of his predecessors than his own. Ought he not to start again or, in words familiar to most of us when we were a good deal younger, "Rub it out. Try again and do better."

10.34 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) was quite right when he said that the Postmaster-General had inherited a shambles. But the right hon. Gentleman did not inherit the speech which he made less than an hour ago, and there was one sentence in that speech which requires explanation because, as it remains within my recollection, it verges on the despicable.
The whole point of my right hon. Friend's suggestion that we should annul these Regulations was to emphasise that the nation is disturbed at the way in which this once excellent service has been brought to a level which can be described only by the word "shambles". It was fair enough of the right hon. Gentleman to want to defend his Department. It was understandable that he should want to put as good a gloss as he could on the mistakes made by his colleagues when they occupied his office. But he deviated from the standards we expect from a Minister when, instead of giving explanations, both technical and apologetic, so to speak—to his credit, he did apologise

—he began to attack the people who use the Post Office.
I was particularly disturbed at the sentence in which he seemed to suggest that people who used franking machines and who had apparently made a mistake about the date might in some way be penalised. He referred to using all the powers given to him in regulations—I do not know if they are these Regulations or others—and he used a tone of voice which gave me the impression that he would inflict some hardship or penalty on customers of the Post Office who were only doing what they had previously done, and had no doubt made a mistake.

Mr. F. A. Burden: It was interesting to note how the Postmaster-General tried to explain away mistakes made by the Post Office, and admit that that organisation sometimes made mistakes, and then say that those who use the service might be penalised for making mistakes.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: That is my point. The right hon. Gentleman gave me the impression—I gather that other hon. Members felt the same—that out of pique, because we had used the Parliamentary platform to draw attention to grievous mistakes, he would use powers under certain regulations in an arbitrary fashion as a punishment, simply because he had had to answer criticisms which it was right for us to make. What did the right hon. Gentleman have in mind in uttering that sentence? Were his words as ominous as I have suggested, or have I misunderstood the emphasis which I have placed upon them?
In addition to that, which is his mistake, the House should support my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames in asking for a full explanation of this Instrument. I do not see how, in this day and age, Parliament can, for the first time, give the Postmaster-General powers to deliberately hold back the mail. We appreciate that there are occasions—in times of flood, the rush at Christmas time, special overloading of the system and so on—when it is fair for him to withhold the mail. But to give him power to do this without previously giving sound reasons to Parliament is too much to ask.
Have we reached the end of the story? We now have a 5d. postage and it has been pointed out that when decimalisation arrives the 4d. stamp will automatically become 4·8d. Does this mean that the 5d. stamp will cost 6d.? Is the right hon. Gentleman taking power to, if necessary, raise it to 7d.? To expect the House to give him such overriding powers, a blank cheque, on a service which affects almost every member of the community is too much to ask. I refer to people who cannot look after themselves. They are not a section of the population who are well organised and wealthy. They would not want the right hon. Gentleman to have powers to charge them what he likes without even first referring the matter to their representatives in Parliament.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who apologised without reserve in a tone which was acceptable to the House, will feel that he is no more responsible for the detailed terms of this Instrument than he was for the shambles for which he had to answer tonight. He should withdraw those terms and redraft them in terms more acceptable to the House.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I must admit that I was impressed by the speech made by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), at least when he suggested that my right hon. Friend should rub things out and try again. My impression so far in this debate is that the second team playing in the second half of this match is no better than the first lot.
The debate exposes the petty-minded attitude, the small-mindedness of the thinking of hon. Members opposite, not only in selecting this subject in the earlier part of the day, but in continuing the discussion at this late hour. Their small-ness of mind is matched by the letters of protest that have been given prominence in some newspapers. This is part of a deliberate campaign, obvious to most people, to discredit not just the Post Office, but any form of public enterprise.
The kind of sixth-form debating that we have heard this evening has been an insult to Parliament. No wonder public opinion polls are not favourably disposed to the Tories. [Interruption.] It is obvi-

ous from an examination of them that, whatever shortcomings we may have, we have at least responsibly tackled the problem, while the manner in which the Opposition are going about their business has not endeared them even to their own supporters.
I suggest that this kind of small-mindedness, raising such issues as this is one of the reasons. I do not see why I should give hon. Members opposite any advice. [Interruption.] Of course, there is a case for the two-tier system. To some extent it fits in with the philosophy of hon. Gentlemen opposite, in providing freedom of choice. I have had the good fortune to have worked for a time in a sorting office. Hon. Members opposite should spend some time working in a post office to improve their knowledge of Post Office matters, rather than listening to some of the prejudiced views—and they can be got, even from Post Office employees—that have been expressed tonight.
It would serve them better if they took some time to examine the problems of staff and labour. The point has been made that the bulk of the mail is posted, and obviously collected, in the evening. Have hon. Members opposite given thought to the fact that it is difficult to get staff to work late at night or all night, or to get up at half-past four in the morning to go to work? Is no thought to be given to the problems that this creates in terms of competing in certain areas where labour is in short supply, to the credit of this Government? People can earn much more in more congenial circumstances. Hon. Members opposite are quite unaware of this. Naturally, in these circumstances, apart from any argument about needing more revenue to finance capital expenditure required—

Mr. Burden: On a point of order. It would seem to me that there is no mention in this Instrument about the terms and conditions of Post Office workers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The hon. Gentleman is a little wide of the Instrument, but I was assuming that he was about to relate his remarks to its terms.

Mr. Brown: I was getting round to whatever number regulation it was that the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames quoted, about withholding


mail, because this is relevant. Why should there be second-class mail? Of course there should be second-class mail; there always has been. What are the Opposition complaining about? What is second-class mail? It is mainly bills, advertising material and stuff which is of no consequence in terms of urgency. There has always been this preponderance of second-class mail and in many cases people do not care whether they receive it or not, never mind about it being delivered on time. There has always been deferred matter and mail deliberately withheld, even under the control of hon. Members opposite when they were in charge of Post Office affairs.
I do not say that this is a perfect system. Perhaps it has not been properly understood, or the reasons have not been properly "sold", but it makes sense to me. If I were running an industry—[An HON. MEMBER: "That is unlikely."] I do not know what business the hon. Member who interrupted me runs, but if he adopts his supercilious, arrogant attitude towards his employees he is not a good employer. I do not think that he could run an efficient business.

Mr. Peter Mahon: Does my hon. Friend remember the Zinoviev letter? Was that not withheld?

Mr. Brown: I do not suggest that this move by the Opposition is as sinister as the Zinoviev letter, but it is certainly part of a campaign by some hon. Members who are aware of the possibility of extending the field of private enterprise in Post Office matters if they think the public will "wear" it. We shall have plenty of time to discuss that when the new Bill comes.
Surely it makes sense to try to organise affairs in such a way that the staff can cope with the work at a time suitable to the staff and to the public. We have already established that second-class mail is not in a hurry.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: Surely the logic of what the hon. Member is saying is that we have had a price increase of 25 per cent in the ordinary mail which last year made a profit of £11 million.

Mr. Brown: I am not disputing that [Laughter.] There is nothing funny about this. Of course it has been ad-

mitted. All the Reports by the Select Committee make the point—that the Post Office had to have more money. No one denies that. From where else can that money come?

Dr. Winstanley: The point is that the item of Post Office services whose price has been increased is the item which made a profit of £11 million last year. That would not seem the most logical item of which to increase the price.

Mr. Brown: As the hon. Member knows, there is more to it than taking what appears to be one simple point and drawing conclusions from that. I shall not be tempted into replying to that point. We shall have plenty of time to argue about broad principles of cross-subsidisation when we have the new Bill. I am firmly convinced that this is an intelligent attempt to rationalise the use of labour at a time when it is difficult to get labour of the necessary quality. This is no reflection on Post Office staff. It is difficult to find good labour for unpleasant work, whether in transport or in the Post Office. Unless the public are made aware of some of the difficulties, they will fall victim to the kind of campaign which is being conducted.
I am satisfied that hon. and right hon. Members opposite are conducting a deliberate campaign to discredit the Post Office service generally, and this debate is part of it. There is no lowering of morale among the staff of the Post Office. On the contrary, the staff welcomed this plan. They know the implications of it, and, perhaps, the implications if they had not welcomed it. Other schemes with unfortunate consequences for the staff might have been introduced as an alternative to this attempt to rationalise the use of labour in the Post Office.
The hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) has been making a good many speeches lately. I am satisfied—he does not make them in a personal capacity—that hon. Members opposite have ideas, whether in commercial radio or some Post Office functions, for hiving things off to private enterprise. We shall soon hear about it if my suspicion is correct. It is only in that context that the time spent on these matters today makes sense.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I shall take only a minute or


two, because I was fortunate in having the opportunity to speak about the new postal services on a previous occasion, but I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) because it is clear that he did not follow the points which were raised in that debate on 17th October. I shall not go into them now. The hon. Gentleman can read the report of the debate in
.
I then pointed out that there was a problem and a challenge in the congestion of post which collects in the evening. I accepted that, and I went on to show that the second-class mail under the previous system was, as the hon. Gentleman himself admitted, in a quite different category, much of it mail of little importance and, therefore, not the kind of second-class mail which is now the preponderant type under the new system Also on that occasion I made clear, as have my hon. Friends today, that no blame attaches to the postal staffs or to the postmen, who are simply trying to carry out the instructions which they have received to the best of their ability. That pretty well demolishes everything which the hon. Gentleman said.
One of the ways by which the Postmaster-General sought to defend the way the system was introduced was simply to praise the postal service as it has operated in recent years. There is no argument between us on that. It has been a good service. That is all the more reason why one deplores that the standard should now be so reduced in a few weeks.
I support the cogent argument regarding Regulation 17, put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). It is this Regulation—the Postmaster-General confirmed it in a Written Answer to me—which alters Section 58 of the Post Office Act, 1953, to which I referred on 17th October, which would otherwise have the effect of making it an offence for any officer of the Post Office, contrary to his duty, to detain, delay, or to procure or suffer to be delayed, any postal packet, and under which someone guilty of such an offence is liable to fine or imprisonment. Now, under Regulation 17 we have provisions which would allow mail to be positively delayed.
In reply to the debate on 17th October, the Postmaster-General stated categorically that post was not being deliberately delayed. On the following Tuesday, he was reported in the Press to have said that he was flabbergasted when an incident was brought to his notice. Apparently, as he told us this evening, he issued a new directive on that occasion. But almost any of my right hon. and hon. Friends could have told him that that was happening. I tried to do so on the previous Thursday. Our criticism is not necessarily of a two-tier system, which may be an improvement, but of the way in which it has been introduced without any preparation or thorough investigation. A kind of groundnut mentality has been behind it.
The Postmaster-General has not yet answered the point raised in the earlier debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan), that it seems that under Regulation 17 second-class mail could be withheld for a week, two weeks, or more if the first-class mail continued to come in in such numbers that it had to command initial attention. I hope that he will answer the point tonight. We must know what the effects of the regulation are. He may answer that delivery of the second-class mail can always be guaranteed after a day's delay, but that does not tie up with what is in Regulation 17.
The other argument that the Postmaster-General has given is the one that astonishes me, namely, blaming the public and producing examples of some irregularities. The public—including, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Provan, the public in Scotland—know very well that things have been going wrong since the scheme started., and that this is not because they have by mistake put the wrong date on a letter or because they have been examining their mail more carefully—another of the reasons given.
The public will be appalled by the complacency of the Postmaster-General in his reply. He has admitted tonight to several ways in which he has taken action since the debate of 17th October. We welcome this as far as it goes. He announced some more tonight, but all this was done after his reply on 17th October, when he said that he was satisfied with the system and that there was no deliberate


delay. I hope that tonight he will agree to withdraw the Regulations and think again so that this system, if it is to work in this country, can have a good send-off and the blessing of the public.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I was astounded when the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) suggested that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General was speaking for the third time this evening, because I have heard the same arguments tonight—and I have not been here all the time—at least six or seven times from the Opposition. The argument has been based solely on the suggested delay associated with the fourpenny mail. But there has been very little stress on the considerable improvement in the first-class mail.
When I first heard figures quoted of 92 per cent. next day delivery originally, rising to 95 per cent., I was a bit sceptical. I thought that statistically this was nonsense, because I believed that within the limits of statistical error these differences were negligible. But I made inquiries of the Post Office as to the methods by which it calculated those percentages and was astounded by the intricate system it uses to obtain them. They were not based on a sample of 1,800, 2,000 or anything like that, as I suspected. The figures are genuine estimates of the past achievement of the first-class mail and expected achievement of the new system. Here we have a considerable improvement in the delivery of the first-class mail.
To be fair in a debate of this sort, one must consider the improvements as well as any delays that may occur in the fourpenny mail. I also feel—and I am certain that my right hon. Friend will assure us of this tonight—that the aim of the changes is not only to produce a 95 per cent. first-class next day delivery, but that perhaps ultimately the four-penny second-class deliveries may reach the 92 per cent. position of what used to be the top-class mail under the original system. The result in the long term—the system has been with us only a very short while—may be a considerable percentage increase in the effectiveness of next day deliveries not only for first-class mail but also for second-class mail.
It has been suggested by the Opposition that they have had a great number of complaints about the postal system.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: Thousands of them.

Mr. Roberts: I have a considerable mail and I have had a number of complaints, but the number is not astounding considering the number of letters that go through the post.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will the hon. Gentleman permit me?

Mr. Roberts: No. I shall be only one minute.
Considering the vast flow of mail, it is a very small percentage of complaints, particularly when we consider the deliberate attempts made by the Opposition to highlight this issue for political purposes. This is the only issue here. Of course I have had a number of complaints, but I do not believe that the number is considerably greater than it would have been if the same focus had been brought on the mail system when the previous arrangements existed.

Sir G. Nabarro: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down—

Mr. Roberts: I have not yet finished.
The only thing that has rather alarmed me during the debate is the stress that my right hon. Friend has laid upon the profits of the Post Office. Of course I believe in systems which run at a profit rather than a loss, but I deplore the fact that we have had what is simply, initially, a price increase. I believe—I am sure many of my hon. Friends would agree—that the first essence of a body like the Post Office is to provide a social service by ensuring that mails are delivered. If it can do that with a profit, all the better. But I have been a little concerned by the stress laid on the profit angle of the service.
The price increase may be undesirable, but the development is basically a progressive one. I feel that the aim of the change to the two-tier system has not been to delay any section of the mail. The simple aim has been to provide the public with a top class first-class service with a better percentage delivery on the second day than hitherto and also a top class second-class service.

Sir G. Nabarro: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, is it not a fact that the reason why he has attracted such a very small volume of complaints about the mails is that the general public would not write to a political innocent? They would write to a man in the Opposition upon whom they could rely—

Mr. Roberts: Mr. Roberts rose—

Sir G. Nabarro: Sit down. Wait till I have finished. They would write to a man in the Opposition upon whom they could rely to blow the roof off with their complaints, which is the reason for our debates this evening.

Mr. Roberts: I do not know how many people write to political innocents; I am not aware how many letters the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) has received on the subject.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: It is quite a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts), though I disagree with almost everything of what I understood him to say. His ignorance is only outweighed by his verbosity, and his ignorance is shared by his right hon. and hon. Friends.
He says that there is no doubt that there has been an improved delivery of mail, and that the whole purpose of our Prayer is to mount a petty campaign against the Post Office. That is rubbish. There has been no improvement in deliveries of first-class mail. In fact, there has been no improvement at all in deliveries—

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Yes, there has.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: There has not, and the hon. Gentleman has only to come to some of our constituencies to see the appalling mess created by what the Postmaster-General did in September. Indeed, he has only to go to post offices in his own constituency to see the troubles and difficulties of the men and women working in them, owing to the two-tier system having been brought in without sufficient attention and preparation.
It is Regulation 17 which is causing the trouble to our constituents, and the Postmaster-General must explain it more

fully to the House before the end of the debate, because there is no mention of a space of time during which mail can be delayed. At present, there is no doubt that it is being delayed, both at the post office of dispatch and at the post office of delivery. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will deal with that point.
Turning to one or two small matters which cause difficulty, I notice in Regulation 23 (2) that all packages and parcels sent to the blind must be capable of being opened for inspection by Post Office staff, whereas Regulation 20 says that ordinary parcels must be secure against theft or pilferage while in transit. I think that Regulation 23 is the wrong type of regulation to apply to the blind, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look at it again.
Regulation 26 concerns the express delivery of mail, and it seems extraordinary that second-class mail cannot be sent in this way. The same applies to registration: only first-class mail can be sent by registered post. The three shilling registration fee has to be paid on top of the ordinary postage. Why should not registration be available to second-class post as well?
Every time, one comes back to the fact that the Postmaster-General has brought in these Regulations without preparation and thought. The result is that our constituents receive a worse service from the Post Office, no matter what the right hon. Gentleman may say, and I for one will join with my right hon. and hon. Friends in condemning the Regulations.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Paul Bryan: I want at the outset to assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), if he needs assurance, that he has the support of the Front Bench on this side of the House. Second, if my right hon. and hon. Friends need any advice, I advise them to support the Prayer in the Lobby. Third, I ask one question, and I do so for the second time, because the Postmaster-General has not answered more than a fifth of our questions tonight.
My one question bears on Regulation 17. I said earlier that under the old system something like 60 per cent. of all second-class mail received first-class treatment owing to the flexibility of the


system. At the beginning of the two-tier system practically no second-class mail got first-class treatment. Gradually, as the Postmaster-General is making concessions, a little more is getting into the first-class stream. Now that he sees what is happening, can he give some sort of forecast of how far he hopes to go in the direction of flexibility? What hopes has he of a large proportion of second-class mail being assured not of first-class treatment but of getting into the first-class stream as used to be the case?

11.11 p.m.

Mr. John Page: Unexpectedly called as I am, I should like first of all to draw attention to Regulation 43 of the Inland Post Regulations concerning recorded delivery packets. These, I believe, cost 9d. above the first-class postage rate. But, in the event of any loss or damage, Regulation 43 states that a sum not exceeding £2 may be paid in compensation as the Postmaster-General "may think just."
The right hon. Gentleman has in his Department a letter from me complaining about the loss of a recorded delivery letter containing 15 or so cheques which were sent on the death of one of my constituents in lieu of flowers and wreaths. It has taken since June until now for the loss to be admitted, and this seems an extraordinarily long time. My constituent has been offered, I think, 2s. 4d. in compensation. This is not enough for the serious disappointment and unhappiness caused to my constituent in having to write again to her friends who sent the cheques and asking whether they would like to subscribe yet again to the charity concerned. I suggest that the sum of £2 mentioned in Regulation 43 ought to be increased to £10 or £15. At 9d. a go for recorded delivery, I would have thought that the Postmaster-General is making a pretty good thing out of it.
My next point relates to election addresses. Will these be sent by first-class or second-class mail, or will recorded delivery be necessary? In view of the present unpopularity of the Government, I have asked my agent to prepare a list and start to address envelopes now, because I do not want any of my constituents to miss my election address when the time arrives.
Turning to Regulation 17, in the last few exciting and rather deafening minutes of the Postmaster-General's speech in the previous debate, I think I understood him to say that he is now sending out instructions to sorting offices that second-class mail may be dealt with as soon as first-class mail has been dispatched. Am I right in so thinking? If he has done that, I think he has at last made an honest man of himself, in view of his Press conference of 5th September. I am not sure whether this applies only to the London area. If this is so, why should it not be extended to other areas?
The right hon. Gentleman will know, because I told him, that I visited Harrow Post Office and found that while the 5d. letters had been dispatched the 4d. letters were still being withheld unnecessarily on his instructions. This had nothing to do with the courteous staff at that post office. When I said, "Surely this stuff is being delayed", I was told by the staff "No, no. This stuff is merely being deferred on the orders of the Postmaster-General."
In his statement of 15th September, the right hon. Gentleman said, "I have no intention of blackmailing the public into using a special kind of post." If the withholding and delaying of deliveries of the second-class mail is not blackmailing the public, I do not know what is. As a business man, I think that there would have been something in it if he had said that he intended to blackmail the public into using the 5d. post and that he would delay the 4d. post in order to make as many people as could afford it use the 5d. post. That is what he has done, and to deny five times previously that that was his intention is shocking.
Despite what the Harrow Observer may have said in the report which the right hon. Gentleman quoted in the earlier debate, my constituents have complained in their hundreds about the present situation. I conclude by quoting the London Borough of Harrow Education Committee which said:
A letter posted in central Harrow on Thursday 3rd arrived here, 2½ miles away, on the morning of Tuesday 8th.
I have sent it back to the local Head Postmaster suggesting he recruits a few ancient Romans.


That shows the classical touch which the Education Department tries to bring intellectually to these problems.

11.17 p.m.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. John Stonehouse): I am glad that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) has been able to get his say in. I will certainly look into the problem raised by his constituent if the hon. Gentleman will let me have details of the case. He asked whether the inclusion of second-class items in first-class deliveries would apply only to London sub-districts. The answer is that it will apply all over the country. First deliveries will be filled up with second-class items where that is without prejudice to the first-class mails and without prejudice to the completion of the first delivery by the appointed time.
I am grateful for the courteous way in which the right hon. Member for Kingston upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) introduced this subject this evening, and I am grateful to him for what he said at the beginning of his speech. However, I must correct him on one or two points. He said that Regulation 17 was wholly contrary to the tradition of the Post Office and that the present Postmaster-General was the first P.M.G. in 300 years to hold up the mails, and he quoted from the regulation.
I draw his attention to the previous regulations. Regulation 53 of 19th September, 1967, said:
Where the despatch or delivery from a post office of letters would be delayed by the despatch or delivery therefrom at the same time of printed packets, sample packets or postcards, such printed packets, sample packets or postcards, or any of them, may be detained in the post office until any
—and I emphasise "any"—
subsequent despatch or delivery.
In other words, the holding back of the mails has applied in the past to printed papers, which before 16th September were second-class mails.
Furthermore, going back a few more years, the regulations which were introduced by Mr. Bevins on 30th December, 1963, were laid during the Recess just after Christmas and they came into operation on 20th January, 1964, one week after the House reassembled, so that there was no opportunity for the House to

debate them before they came into operation. Regulation 17 reads:
Any printed packet on which postage of 2½ d. only is payable, if posted after such hour as the Postmaster General may from time to time fix, may be withheld from despatch until any subsequent despatch or delivery, unless an extra ½ d. postage is prepaid thereon.
All that I wish to demonstrate is that Mr. Bevins, as Postmaster-General, and other P.M.G.s have introduced similar regulations to that which I introduced during the Summer Recess.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Surely the two regulations that went out refer purely to printed letters, which are second-class. In Regulation 17 of these Regulations second-class letters refer to ordinary business letters which happen to have a 4d. stamp on them.

Mr. Stonehouse: The hon. Member for Peterborough has got it absolutely right. This was the whole point of the two-tier system: to make the second-class mails similar to the printed papers of the past, subject to some delay in order to give priority to the first-class mails.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames referred to certain delays in deliveries of mails in Orkney and Shetland, giving a description of the way these mails are dealt with. I assure him that there is no question of second-class mails being sent by any route that is more expensive than the first-class mail route. If there is, we will change it, because the whole essence of the two-tier system is to secure economy and efficiency. If second-class mails can be delivered more economically by using first-class mail routes, they will be transmitted by those routes.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to what he called the "devaluation of the post mark". I do not accept that in any way. Of course, the second-class mails do not now have the time stamp. All first-class mails do, and it is right that they should have the time stamp. But second-class mails will only have the date stamp, because this is appropriate. If there are particular examples of envelopes that have been date stamped several times, I hope that hon. Gentlemen will not hesitate to send them to me, because we should want to investigate them to see what went wrong.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have already done that.

Mr. Stonehouse: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the increase in the cost of sending a postcard. Indeed, it has increased from 3d. to either 4d. or 5d., depending on the standard of service which the customer wants. But as the Select Committee recognised, and as every independent assessment of the work of the Post Office has recognised, we cannot have uneconomic services in the Post Office subsidised by another. The service on postcards last year made a loss of £1·3 million. It was obvious that we needed to increase the cost of sending postcards to eliminate this loss.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The increase in the cost of sending a postcard is 66⅔ per cent. How can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that, for example, with the action of the Government in prohibiting very much smaller proportionate rent increases by local authorities on the ground that prices ought to be held in the present situation?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a little wide of the debate.

Mr. Stonehouse: The right hon. Gentleman talked about Forces mail. There is no unnecessary delay of this mail.
The subject of post office preferred envelopes is extremely important, because it will enable us to standardise the way that we deal with the mail and it will assist us in installing new machines to sort the mail.
The hon. Member for Peterborough referred to what he described as my pique in dealing with the meter posters. I assure him that there was no pique on my part. All that I said was that I must now consider, within the Post Office, what we should do about these flagrant irregularities on the part of some meter posters who put dates on the envelopes that in no way correspond with the actual date they deliver the mail to the post offices. There is no pique on my part. We simply want to ensure that when an addressee receives an envelope with an incorrect date on it the Post Office does not get the blame.
I want, now, to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell). The hon.

Gentleman is usually moderate and sensible in these things, but he made a deliberate distortion in his speech. In no way was I blaming the public, as he suggested. I was pointing out that there were some firms, indeed a great many firms, which were putting dates on envelopes, when using their meters, which did not correspond with the dates on which they delivered the mail to the Post Office. Surely I am entitled to make that point in the defence of the Post Office, without being accused of attacking the public, because that is what I was not doing.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: That was not all. The right hon. Gentleman said it was the public's fault because they were examining their mail much more closely.

Mr. Stonehouse: I did not say it was the public's fault. I said that there were a large number of complaints because the volume of mail was so huge. With a failure rate of only 1 per cent., that can cause 350,000 complaints a day because of the 35 million envelopes which we deal with a day.
There has been some complaint that we had to make the Regulations during the Recess. I should like to explain why they were made then and not before. Our original intention was to lay the Regulations before the House went into recess. This would have meant a very tight timetable, but we could have done it. However, shortly after I became Postmaster-General I was approached by the Periodical Publishers Association about the effect of the new postage rates on the publishers of the heavier technical and specialised magazines whose distribution overseas plays an important rôle in promoting British exports. The Post Office Users Council also made similar representations on behalf of the expanding mail order book industry.
Because the limit of weight in the second-class service had to be fixed at 1½ lbs., people who previously posted printed paper mail between 1½ lbs. and 2 lbs. would have been forced to use either the first-class service or the parcels service. I was very conscious of the need to assist the export drive, and the limitation on the profitability of the periodical publishers would have been a very serious handicap on that, so I agreed to continue for the next two years, at a cost of about £500,000, a concessionary printed paper rate for items of


post weighing between 1½ lbs. and 2 lbs. This caused a delay in the drafting of the Regulations, and it became impossible for us to lay them before the House before the Recess.
We have had a great many complaints about the postal service. The hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) accused me of not taking into account the interests of the rural areas. I have had a communication from a gentleman at Trem-y-Foel, Llandyrnog, Denbigh, who says that the new two-tier system gives him a much better service than he had before, and I am sure that this gentleman, Mr. A. T. Roberts, is supported by a great many people in rural areas as well as in towns who welcome the service with which the two-tier system is

providing them. Of course this is a price increase, but within that price increase the customer now has a wider choice.

Sir John Rodgers: With hindsight perhaps, would not the right hon. Gentleman now prefer to go back to the old system and put the price of mail up to, say, 4½d., instead of introducing the two-tier system?

Mr. Stonehouse: I am satisfied that the two-tier system has been introduced very successfully, is proving successful, and will be recognised by the whole country as a great success.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 216, Noes 265.

Division No. 3.]
AYES
[11.30 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Jopling, Michael


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Emery, Peter
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Astor, John
Errington, Sir Eric
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Eyre, Reginald
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Awdry, Daniel
Farr, John
Kershaw, Anthony


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Fisher, Nigel
Kimball, Marcus


Balniel, Lord
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fortescue, Tim
Kirk, Peter


Batsford, Brian
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Kitson, Timothy


Beamish, Col Sir Tufton
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Gibson-Watt, David
Lane, David


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bessell, Peter
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Biffen, John
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Biggs-Davison, John
Glover, Sir Douglas
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Black, Sir Cyril
Glyn, Sir Richard
Loveys, W. H.


Blaker, Peter
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Lubbock, Eric


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Goodhart, Philip
MacArthur, Ian


Body, Richard
Gower, Raymond
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Grant, Anthony
McMaster, Stanley


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Grant-Ferris, R.
Maddan, Martin


Brewis, John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maginnis, John E.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Grieve, Percy
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Marten, Neil


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maude, Angus


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mawby, Ray


Bryan, Paul
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J,


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Burden, F. A.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Miscampbell, Norman


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Carlisle, Mark
Hastings, Stephen
Monro, Hector


Channon, H. P. G.
Hawkins, Paul
More, Jasper


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hay, John
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Clark, Henry
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Clegg, Walter
Heseltine, Michael
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Cooke, Robert
Higgins, Terence L.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Cooper-Key, sir Neill
Hiley, Joseph
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Corfield, F. V.
Hill, J. E. B.
Neave, Airey


Costain, A. P.
Holland, Philip
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Crouch, David
Hooson, Emlyn
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Crowder, F. P.
Hordern, Peter
Nott, John


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hornby, Richard
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Currie, G. B. H.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hunt, John
Osborn, John (Hallam)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Iremonger, T. L.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Digby, Simon wingfield
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pardoe, John


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Doughty, Charles
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Peel, John


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Percival, Ian


Drayson, G. B.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pink, R. Banner


Eden, Sir John






Pounder, Rafton
Silvester, Frederick
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Sinclair, Sir George
Walker, Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; Limington)
Wall, Patrick


Prior, J. M. L.
Speed, Keith
Walters, Dennis


Pym, Francis
Stainton, Keith
Ward, Dame Irene


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Webster, David


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Stodart, Anthony
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Summers, Sir Spencer
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tapsell, Peter
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Ridsdale, Julian
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow. Cathcart)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Teeling, Sir William
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Rodgers Sir, John (Sevenoaks)
Temple, John M.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Royle, Anthony
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Worsley, Marcus


Russell, Sir Ronald
Tilney, John
Wylie, N. R.


St. John-Stevas, Norman
van Straubenzee, W. R.



Scott-Hopkins, James
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Sharples, Richard
Vickers, Dame Joan
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Waddington, David
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Alldritt, Walter
Eadie, Alex
Jones, Rt. Hn. SirElwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Allen, Scholefield
Edelman, Maurice
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Anderson, Donald
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Archer, Peter
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Judd, Frank


Armstrong, Ernest
Ellis, John
Kelley, Richard


Ashley, Jack
English, Michael
Kenyon, Clifford


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Ennals, David
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lawson, George


Barnes, Michael
Faulds, Andrew
Leadbitter, Ted


Barnett, Joel
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Bence, Cyril
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Bidwell, Sydney
Forrester, John
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Bishop, E. S.
Fowler, Gerry
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Freeson, Reginald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Boston, Terence
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lomas, Kenneth


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Gardner, Tony
Loughlin, Charles


Boyden, James
Garrett, W. E.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Ginsburg, David
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Bradley, Tom
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McBride, Neil


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
MacColl, James


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Gregory, Arnold
MacDermot, Niall


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Macdonald, A. H.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McGuire, Michael


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Buchan, Norman
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mackie, John


Carmichael, Neil
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mackintosh, John P.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Caste, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hamilng, William
McNamara, J. Kevin


Chapman, Donald
Hannan, William
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Coe, Denis
Harper, Joseph
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Coleman, Donald
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Concannon, J. D.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Haseldine, Norman
Manuel, Archie


Crawshaw, Richard
Hattersley, Roy
Mapp, Charles


Cronin, John
Hazell, Bert
Marks, Kenneth


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Herbison. Rt. Hn. Margaret
Marquand, David


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hilton, W. S.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hobden, Dennis
Maxwell, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Hooley, Frank
Mayhew, Christopher


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Horner, John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mendelson, John


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mikardo, Ian


Davies, G. Eifed (Rhondda, E.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Millan, Bruce


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Howie, W.
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hoy, James
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Delargy, Hugh
Huckfield, Leslie
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Dell, Edmund
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Molloy, William


Dempsey, James
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Moonman, Eric


Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hunter, Adam
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Dickens, James
Hynd, John
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Dobson, Ray
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Doig, Peter
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Murray, Albert


Dunn, James A.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Neal, Harold


Dunnett, Jack
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Newens, Stan


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)







Norwood, Christopher
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Tinn, James


Oakes, Gordon
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'cras)
Tomney, Frank


Ogden Eric
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Urwin, T. W.


O'Malley, Brian
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Varley, Eric G.


Orbach, Maurice
Rose, Paul
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Oswald, Thomas
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Owen, Dr David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Rowlands, E.
Wallace, George


Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Ryan, John
Watkins, David (Consett)


Page, Derek (King's Lyon)
Shaw Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Paget, R. T.
Sheldon, Robert
Weitzman, David


Palmer, Arthur
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wellbeloved, James


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Whitaker, Ben


Pavitt, Laurence
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Whitlock, William


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Silverman, Julius
Wilkins, W. A.


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Skeffington, Arthur
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Pentland, Norman
Small, William
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Perry, George H, (Nottingham, S.)
Snow, Julian
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Price, William (Rugby)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Probert, Arthur
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Rees, Merlyn
Swain, Thomas
Winnick, David


Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Swingier, Stephen
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Taverne, Dick



Richard, Ivor
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thornton, Ernest
Mr. Charles R. Morris and


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

Mr. Ernest Perry.

Orders of the Day — DISABLED PERSONS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]

11.42 p.m.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: This is a very wide subject, and my hon. Friend will, I am sure, forgive me if I sometimes stray beyond the province of his responsibility and will pass on any relevant remarks to his right hon. and hon. Friends.
The difficulties of tackling the problems of the disabled are very great. First, there is the statistical difficulty of determining how many disabled people there are. I appreciate that some figures are available—for example, the 650,000 on the Ministry of Labour register—but it is a complex problem and not easy to determine the numbers involved. It is suggested that in Britain probably 1½ million people, and perhaps even 2 million people, have some form of disablement of one degree or another.
The second difficulty arises from what I term the absurd British attitude to disablement in that in this country, and perhaps only in this country, we categorise people according to where they were disabled and who they are. A war-service disabled person, for example, is in a different category from a civilian who has been disabled, and a major is in a different category from a private in the same regiment. Disablement in

this country is largely a matter of who a man is and where he was unfortunate enough to be disabled.
The benefits can vary enormously. There is the whole spectrum, from the man receiving full disablement to the housewife who gets virtually nothing if her husband is at work. This often results in men being driven from employment to stay at home to help their disabled wives.
The only answer to the disablement problem is to provide a universal disablement pension. We may not be in a position to do this now, but after next January, when we expect more statistics to be available, we may be in a position to consider this type of disablement pension, the value of which should be related only to the level of disablement. That level is, itself, difficult to determine. In some countries it is measured purely by loss of earning capacity. Other criteria apply, such as loss of environmental benefits and so on. We might consider these factors. Already in some countries—for example, in Sweden—there is what is almost a universal disability pension of this kind. An urgent task for the Government next year will be to provide something universally for disabled people in this way.
The problems of the disabled are not purely financial. They have a multitude of other problems, the cures for many of which are the responsibility of local authorities. There is, for example, the provision of housing, toilets and special


facilities of this type. If we are honest, we will admit that the whole position is extremely unsatisfactory from this point of view. Few local authorities—I know of only one or two—are providing special toilets for the disabled. Many local authorities are providing homes for the aged but are doing little, if anything, for disabled younger people. The provision of these facilities has been left too much in the hands of local authorities, or local authorities have too many permissive and too few mandatory powers in this matter.
There is also the question of transport, particularly the problem of the wheelchair. There have been several instances in my constituency where the machinery relating to wheelchairs is too cumbersome. We need more wheelchair clinics. Dastardly tricycles are offered as transport to the disabled and I had the experience of driving one of these during the summer. According to the local Press, the machine almost carried me away into someone's garden. The sad fact is that these machines are not capable of carrying anyone away. They limit people to travelling within a small radius of their homes. They are completely unsuitable and it is commonly believed that the majority of people who receive these tricycles could equally well receive and operate small cars which would have the advantage of being communal vehicles so that the disabled could be with their families when travelling. The cost of this is perhaps £40 million, with possibly another few millions later. There is adequate money from many sources for this.
The great need is for co-ordination. There must be co-ordination between Government Departments. Vehicles for the disabled in the South Bedfordshire area can only be serviced at St. Albans, which can be 12 to 15 miles away, almost beyond the range of this type of vehicle. There must be co-ordination between the Government and local authorities to provide grants for additional services. For example, a ramp has not been provided for the disabled outside Luton Central Library, which means that they are barred from using the library. There is another establishment, in Leighton Buzzard, providing a sound system for the disabled, based on loop hearing aids

which has a multi-directional system. At present the Ministry is still providing most people, except children, with unidirectional aids. Here again we need co-ordination with local authorities, hospitals and family doctors.
The great need is to provide, as soon as the statistics are available next year, some universal pension, based on disability level only. We must stimulate and push local authorities into doing a great deal more for the disabled. There must be co-ordination between all the activities. The plank on which the hon. Gentleman and I were elected, on which we have fought through the years, is that we are a party of priorities. I submit that the disabled and their problems have a top priority.

11.53 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Julian Snow): I am very appreciative of the care which my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts) has taken to give me notice of certain points he wished to raise tonight. It is always a help, because it enables one to give a better reply.
The term "disabled" includes both those handicapped by congenital deformity or by accidental injury. It includes those struck down by a crippling disease or disabled by continuous and chronic illness. It also includes a number of persons with special problems, the blind and deaf, for example. If I pass over their problems it must not be assumed that I am not very conscious that we must do more to help that category. Aspects of our efforts to deal with the many facets of disablement are the concern of Departments for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is not directly responsible. There are the closest links between Ministers of various Departments and I will try to take up as many as possible of the various points raised.
My hon. Friend has spoken of the difficulty of identifying the disabled and estimating their numbers. I answered a Question this afternoon on this. A survey is being carried out, and we hope that it will be in a publishable form within two years. Of the two hundred and fifty thousand questionnaires sent out 87 per cent. replied, which is very satisfactory. Of the large number who


responded 11,000 handicapped people are now being given personal and more detailed interviews to elicit more information. Questions are being asked about their experience of and need for welfare and other services, about their financial position, the suitability of their housing, about employment and other matters and tests of disability will be administered.
The results of this survey should become available during the next two years, and we expect them to provide us with a great deal of information about the disabled which has never been available before, and which is essential if we are to plan sensibly and economically for the future development of services which will help them.
Financial provision in other countries is often drawn to our attention, as did my hon. Friend tonight, but a good deal of confusion can arise because they use abroad different terminology, but do not necessarily make better overall provision. The Swedish basic disablement pension is not radically different from our long-term sickness benefit. What is different in Sweden, and this is due at least in part to different social attitudes, is the treatment of the uninsured housewife. The Swedish housewife who is so badly disabled as to be incapable of doing her own housework gets a disablement pension in her own right; but her husband does not have his benefit increased for her as a dependant. Although we have traditionally worked the other way round, the preparation of new plans is going ahead, and as the House knows a White Paper outlining the Government's thinking on the future development of our social security provisions is to be published in the fairly near future.
My hon. Friend has referred to the problem which disabled people face in gaining access to public buildings. The attention of local authorities has been called to this in a number of circulars explaining their powers, and a British Standard Code of Practice, in the drawing up of which Government officers participated, has recently been published.
My hon. Friend referred particularly to public buildings in Luton, especially the Central Library. My information is that porters are available at the library ready to give assistance to anyone in need of help. The council is neverthe-

less examining the problem again as a result of representations which have been made.
Reference has also been made to the question of dwellings for disabled people. Under the Housing Act, 1957, this is a local authority responsibility; the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has from time to time issued advice to authorities on the design of suitable dwellings for the physically handicapped. Housing authorities can help by designing some of the ground floor accommodation and bungalows they build for old people so that they are equally suitable for occupation by the physically handicapped. Though disabled persons can best be provided for in purpose-built dwellings, local authorities might often find it difficult to satisfy the demand in this way. There are ways of overcoming this, however; for example the ground floor of blocks of flats can be designed to meet the needs of the disabled, especially wheelchair users.
Powers under Section 29 of the National Assistance Act include the adaptation of dwellings to make them easier for disabled people to live in, or for relatives and others to care for them at home. Such adaptations are the provision of handrails, the replacement of steps by ramps, the widening of doorways to allow a wheelchair to pass through, or the provision of a ground floor bathroom and lavatory. All local authorities possess powers to adapt existing buildings for the general classes of the physically handicapped.
My hon. Friend referred to the fact that many of these powers are permissive, but I think there is some misapprehension here. For the past eight years local authorities have been under a duty to exercise their powers under Section 29 of the National Assistance Act, in respect of persons ordinarily resident in their area who are substantially and permanently handicapped by illness, injury or congenital deformity. The selection of priorities must nevertheless be decided locally by people who are familiar with local resources and needs. It is desirable that my Department should, as far as possible, confine itself to issuing advice and guidance, and by means of meetings and circulars to encourage the adoption by all authorities of the practices employed by the best of them.
I come now to the question of vehicles. My hon. Friend was guilty, perhaps, of a little exaggeration on one or two points. He spoke of what he called the dastardly tricycle, an expression which did not commend itself to me. Many people who are critics of the tricycle—and, heaven knows, they are open to criticism—forget that one of the all-important factors is access by the disabled person into the vehicle.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Has my hon. Friend, with his size—if he will pardon the reference—ever been in one?

Mr. Snow: Yes, I have—not one but several various models. I do not pretend that it is just like driving in comfort in an ordinary car, but, thank heaven, I do not happen to be a disabled person. The fact is that there are so many permutations and combinations necessary to make a vehicle usable by disabled persons that it is impossible to be dogmatic about it. I believe access to be one of the greatest problems confronting us.
My hon. Friend made another point which I did not much like. He spoke of the nearest approved repairer being out of range, or nearly out of range, of some of these tricycles. That is just not so, and I shall be happy to demonstrate to my hon. Friend that it is not by reference to figures relating to the range and capacity of these vehicles.
My hon. Friend suggested that disabled people should all be provided with cars instead of invalid three-wheelers and that the increased cost should not deter us from this. It would be unfortunate if all whose disabilities entitled them to a vehicle were offered nothing but a car because many of them would be unable to enter a small car, or, having entered, to drive it. Some of them would under the rules be able to choose a car if they wanted one, but no car can, for all the help which our doctors and technical experts give, be made suitable for them.
The invalid three-wheeler has been designed and continually improved to cater for just such people. It has easy access, convenient stowage for a wheel-chair, a large uncluttered interior, and, above all, light steering with facilities for the grouping of controls to suit the physical limitations of each individual.
Perhaps at this point, with the wit of the staircase, as the French say, I may remind my hon. Friend that we offered facilities to Labour and Conservative Members of the House of Commons Disabled Drivers Group to go and look at these vehicles when they were at the party conferences. I am sorry that my hon. Friend did not take that opportunity.

Mr. Roberts: I have tried them out.

Mr. Snow: My hon. Friend did not go to that particular demonstration.
We take great care to provide independent mobility for disabled people. That has been the whole basis of the provision of vehicles, it has been the formula which we have accepted, the social contract which we have undertaken, which provides a far better service for disabled people than is available in any other country of the world.
The three-wheelers are criticised because they are unconventional and different from the vehicles to which most people are accustomed. It is only by making them different that so many disabled people can be given personal transport. We have gone further in providing free vehicles for the disabled than anyone else in the world has done. But technology advances and standards rise, and the improvements which we have already made—better brakes and heating are two examples—cannot for long be envisaged as more than evidence of our determination continually to improve the vehicles which we supply. Next year, we shall incorporate a new and better suspension. After that, we shall move to larger engines and automatic transmission. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has tried out the prototype vehicle with automatic transmission. I can tell him that it makes a world of difference.
There is, however, a limit to resources, and there are many claims on them. It would be irresponsible, therefore, to say that financial considerations are irrelevant to the provision of vehicles. If we chose to spend more money on this service, we should have less left for other equally deserving people in need.
We have approved repairers, who, whilst I would not say that they are within the range of 100 per cent. convenience of the disabled people concerned, are strategically located. Small


repairs can be carried out by any local garage, and reasonable repair bills will be met by my Department.
We should perhaps think for a minute about the question of co-ordination which my hon. Friend raised. It is not a new problem, but we are taking substantial steps to provide better co-ordination of the various services. I agree that they must be examined and the whole situation reviewed. It has long been recognised that it is not good compartmentalising the problems of the disabled and saying that we shall tackle them one by one. When a disabled person seeks help he needs held with all his problems at once. We have given a good deal of thought to the problems of co-ordinating the various services, problems which arise because of the different functions that must be exercised.
There have recently been two major examples of our intention to improve the co-ordination between different parts of the services for handicapped people. During the summer the Report of the Seebohm Committee was presented to Parliament. The Government are carefully considering the Committee's recommendation that services now administered separately should be brought under one unified control and administered by a single new local authority department. The views of the local authority associations and others are being sought. Only last week the Department of Health and Social Security was created by merging the Ministries of Health and Social Security, thus bringing together two of the most important facets of assistance for the disabled, and giving formal recognition to the fact that disabled people and their families very often need help not only from one source but from a number. It is the Government's policy

to make it easier for people to get the help they need without going to half a dozen different places.
My hon. Friend finished by more or less implying that there are out-of-date hearing aids which do not have multidirectional reception. I agree that some public buildings are being wired with a loop induction system for use with hearing aids fitted with an induction coil. National Health Service "Medresco" hearing aids do not have this facility, except one model provided specially for children being educated in establishments wired with the loop system. Because the number of public buildings so wired is increasing, the new "Medresco" aid now being developed for general issue will incorporate this facility.
If I was perhaps a little terse or dogmatic in replying to my hon. Friend about invalid tricycles, it is because I have given considerable thought to this problem. As I said earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is receiving a deputation from the Joint Council on Mobility for the Disabled shortly, and I have suggested certain problems that might be raised. There must be limitations, because of the limitations of resources. We must be certain that people can use the vehicles, and not all disabled persons can get into an ordinary car.
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, in spite of my rather quick reaction to his criticisms, for raising this point, because it is important to put on record certain things about tricycles and to elaborate the Government's plans about co-ordination.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Twelve o'clock.